Federal judge rules Trump blocking people on Twitter is unconstitutional

[bigtree]

The Hill @thehill 7m7 minutes ago

#BREAKING: Federal judge rules Trump blocking people on Twitter is unconstitutional http://hill.cm/cv4HFc2

District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in a ruling that Trump's Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, is a designated public forum and protected by the First Amendment.

"Blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment," the ruling reads.

[dalton99a]

1. Good

He's such a coward

[PoliticAverse]

2. Big difference between blocking someone from posting and blocking them from reading. n/t

[Hortensis]

5. Darn, yes! It just affects blocks on viewing.

You're a spoiler, Averse. For a few seconds I was imagining Trump and his bully pulpit covered with flying eggs.

[SunSeeker]

18. That's not how I read the ruling. He can't block people, i.e. he can't block replies.

https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/05/23/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202018.05.pdf

[Hortensis]

20. Oh, I hope you're right and the 1 initial analysis I read

is wrong. I read the document you presented (thanks), and it sounds as if you could well be, but I'm also more confused by potential complexities. I've never posted there, but if it is I'll visit and as him to resign for the good of the nation.

He "hereby demands," does he? Wish that had been submitted in evidence. Just read that 15M, or about a quarter of his supposed followers, are fake.

[SunSeeker]

21. Of course many of his followers are fake. You can purchase fake followers.

If you are willing to pay for them, you can have all the followers you want.

https://buytwitterfollowersreview.org/

[Lucinda]

16. You can't really block someone from reading though...all they have to do is logout

and then they can see his posts.

[Takket]

3. He will keep right on doing it with no repercussions

[elleng]

4. After all,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[B2G]

6. Is the same true for all posters?

Curious about what precedent this might set. Isn't Twitter nothing but one big public forum?

[tammywammy]

9. It would apply only to public officials.

Not private individuals.

[mythology]

12. My guess is that it would be more narrowly interpreted

Trump uses his personal Twitter account to announce public policy. If he kept that separate, I wouldn't see a reason to have the same policy.

[tammywammy]

14. Agreed.

[Caliman73]

19. No. Twitter is communications software that private and public individuals use to communicate.

The difference is that Trump represents a branch of the Federal Government, thus by him blocking people on his official Twitter feed which he has used to make government announcements, he is essentially the government abridging the rights of people to redress grievances.

Hillary Clinton can block whoever she wants on her private Twitter feed, but she would not have been able to do so on her Twitter feed as Secretary of State.

[manor321]

7. Weird

I think it is a weird ruling. Anyone can read people's tweets, even if they don't have an account (except for reply tweets).

[tammywammy]

10. He was also blocking people from responding.

He was blocking people that criticized him from viewing and responding to his tweets

[mythology]

13. Actually if blocked, while logged in, users couldn't see the tweets

But also Trump uses his personal Twitter account (as opposed to the POTUS account) to make policy announcements. As such it's fair to mandate allowing access.

[Gothmog]

8. If trump's idiotic and moronic tweets are official govt. communications, then trump

cannot block people on twitter

[procon]

11. The judge's ruling mistakenly assumes that Trump will act normally and

respond to her order like any other defendant who lost their case.

The judge declined to issue an order forcing Trump to unblock the users, saying her ruling should be sufficient to force a change in behavior.

If the order isn't specific and its not in writing, Trump will not comply with her intent.

[SunSeeker]

17. Well, they just need to go in and get injunctive relief if he does not comply.

They received the declaratory relief. The ruling already says they can get injunctive relief if, after notice of this ruling, the President still blocks these people from Twitter.

[Lucinda]

15. LOL

Awesome!

[Cha]

22. Thank you, District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald!