3 ms·

As 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 indepen

As 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 ago
But 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 ago
  You'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 ago
    This 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 ago
      Fantastic, 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 ago
        There'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 ago
        Please 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 ago
        West 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 ago
        I'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 ago
        The Rumsfield case is literally on point: the government cannot force a private party to present government speech. I don't know how much more on point than they can be. Twitter is not a legally recognized method of presenting Official Statements, as a matter of law (which sets forth the prescribed methods for making Official Statements). They have no responsibilities to present Official Statements, which means they can "impede" access to those statements on their platform all they like, in whatever manner that takes, from simply deleting such posts to providing fact checks to outright editorializing against the official statements. As noted, I suspect this is not a 1st Amendment issue as the "speech" is present regardless and you have organizations, not necessarily people. I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is definitely a First Amendment issue...even the White House acknowledges that this is a First Amendment issue. This order is entirely about trying to violate Twitter's First Amendment rights as a private non-governmental organization.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Twitter 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 ago
But 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 ago
  A 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 ago
  I 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...

mc32 6y ago

But 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 ago
You'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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Fantastic, 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 ago
      There'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 ago
        Please 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 ago
        West 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 ago
        I'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 ago
        The Rumsfield case is literally on point: the government cannot force a private party to present government speech. I don't know how much more on point than they can be. Twitter is not a legally recognized method of presenting Official Statements, as a matter of law (which sets forth the prescribed methods for making Official Statements). They have no responsibilities to present Official Statements, which means they can "impede" access to those statements on their platform all they like, in whatever manner that takes, from simply deleting such posts to providing fact checks to outright editorializing against the official statements. As noted, I suspect this is not a 1st Amendment issue as the "speech" is present regardless and you have organizations, not necessarily people. I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is definitely a First Amendment issue...even the White House acknowledges that this is a First Amendment issue. This order is entirely about trying to violate Twitter's First Amendment rights as a private non-governmental organization.
gamblor956 6y ago
Twitter 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 ago

But 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 ago
A 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 ago
I 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...