3 ms·
Wasn't there a sort-of reverse issue a year or two ago, when the President was blocking people on twitter and a court ruled that he was violating their 1st amen
by sircastor 6y ago
Wasn't there a sort-of reverse issue a year or two ago, when the President was blocking people on twitter and a court ruled that he was violating their 1st amendment rights?
Is it exclusively because of his office? Could it be construed the other direction?
- suchire 6y agoYes. If he weren’t in office, there would be no obligation
- etchalon 6y agoHe was an elected official, and elected officials cannot violate a citizen's first amendment rights. Twitter is not an elected official. This is not hard.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- astura 6y agoThey only ruled that way because of the way Trump use(ed) his Twitter account - he used it to conduct government business, the white house themselves said his tweets are ‘official statements.’ 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... >Could it be construed the other direction? No.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Is it exclusively because of his office? Because of his office and the manner of use, yes, explicitly, under the limited public forum doctrine.
- jcranmer 6y agoYes, it's exclusively because of his using his Twitter account as an official outlet for government statements. Trump has appealed the decision to SCOTUS, which is still considering whether or not hear it [1]. Given that Trump's Twitter account is now banned, I suspect SCOTUS will dismiss the motion as mooted. [1] See https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-knight-first-amendment-institute/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-knight-f... for the docket information.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoThe First Amendment concerns the government's suppression of speech. The POTUS is part of the US Government. Twitter is not. So... no.