Judge Orders Trump to Stop Blocking Twitter Users

[Chance]

The implications of this make my head hurt. From Ars Technica (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/judge-orders-donald-trump-to-stop-blocking-people-on-twitter/):


A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Donald Trump's use of the Twitter block button violated the First Amendment. The ruling has implications for any government official—federal, state, or local—who uses Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with the public.

....

The main effect of blocking someone is that that person's tweets no longer show up in the blocker's timeline. No one disputes that Trump has the right to do that if he wants. But blocking someone also works in the other direction: if Trump blocks another user, that user can't see Trump's tweets and (as a consequence) can't reply to them. And that, ruled Naomi Buchwald, a New York Federal judge, raises a constitutional problem.

The courts have long held that if the government creates a "public forum"—like a park, lecture hall, or street corner—that it must make the forum available to all speakers, regardless of their viewpoint. A city government can't say that only Republicans, Christians, or vegetarians are allowed to hold rallies in the town square, and it can't blacklist activists with a history of criticizing the mayor.

....

If Donald Trump blocks someone, that person loses the opportunity to reply to Trump tweets and have their tweet show up underneath them. They also lose the ability to retweet Trump tweets.

Buchwald's ruling concludes that the "interactive space for replies and retweets" surrounding each Donald Trump tweet should be considered a public forum under First Amendment law. As a result, blocking these users from replying to and retweeting Trump tweets violated the First Amendment.

That seems like a pretty big stretch, but she does kind of have a point. Similar reasoning was used to keep a Virginia politician from blocking critical constituents on Facebook, so such decisions aren't unprecedented.

[RevolverRob]

I like this ruling. It's nuanced, specific, and embraces the reality of the present, by invoking the precedent of the past.

[Chance]

I like this ruling. It's nuanced, specific, and embraces the reality of the present, by invoking the precedent of the past.

I'm ambivalent, but most of my concerns are related to privacy and what exactly constitutes a "public forum." I would argue that the publicly-accessible social media profile of a reality TV star constitutes a "public forum." But given that surveillance in the economy of the Internet, and far, far more data about ourselves than we would ever expect are accessible by the public (e.g., "open source"), I'm not sure how we would even define "public."

For instance, if a person aspiring to a political office were to post something in 'The Coterie Club,' (which is accessible to any person who is a PF contributor, but is explicitly intended not to be accessible by just anyone who wanders in from Google or elsewhere [Tom_Jones, please correct me if I'm talking out of my ass]) how do the courts interpret that? It's a walled community, but anyone can access it. So is that a "public forum"?

I'd like to hear lawyers interpret the legalese.

[Totem Polar]

I like this ruling. It's nuanced, specific, and embraces the reality of the present, by invoking the precedent of the past.

As well, Trump owns neither his Twitter account, nor would any elected official "own’ their FB account; my undestanding is that twitter and FB own them.

Still, it makes my head hurt too.

[Ed L]

What bothers me about this more than anything else is that it suggests that Donald Trump actually is spending any time reading other people's twitter comments rather than simply posting his own tweets and then going on with his presidential business which should leave him little time for twitter interaction.

Mind you, I do not have my own twitter account. I have a few people's twitter accounts that I have bookmarked that I look at from time to time. So for all I know when he logs onto twitter to tweet, he may be confronted by a lot of annoying comments and may just choose to block them.

[Grey]

I completely agree with this ruling. Donald Trump uses twitter as a forum to air his thoughts and policy. He should not be able to limit the viewing of this material, I mean for fucks sake it is supposed to be recorded by the library of congress.

[BehindBlueI's]

On the other hand, if Trump's goal were merely to get annoying users to stop bothering him, he could accomplish that goal just as well using the mute button. This button prevents tweets from muted accounts from showing up in Trump's timeline and notifications, but it doesn't prevent muted users from replying to and retweeting Trump's tweets. The fact that Trump chose to block users instead suggests that his goal was to prevent them from communicating with others.

Ok, so did he actually block people? That seems to indicate he (or someone on his behalf) actually is reading the messages.

So he can mute people but not block them, he can choose not to receive but can't choose who receives his messages? I'm ok with that. I'm surprised it's an issue, but I'm ok with it.

[ssb]

For instance, if a person aspiring to a political office were to post something in 'The Coterie Club,' (which is accessible to any person who is a PF contributor, but is explicitly intended not to be accessible by just anyone who wanders in from Google or elsewhere [Tom_Jones, please correct me if I'm talking out of my ass]) how do the courts interpret that? It's a walled community, but anyone can access it. So is that a "public forum"?

I suppose the distinction is that with Twitter, a politician is kind of putting up one of those goofy politics bulletin board things one sees at colleges, something they want passers by to read and perhaps comment upon whereas something like this forum is simply the politician participating in a private discussion. In the second example, the politician isn't creating a venue for people to discuss things -- he or she is simply participating in a behind-closed-doors discussion, and I don't believe participation would equal forum creation. In the first scenario I can see a court saying "no, the President doesn't get to tell people with certain viewpoints they don't get to play."

I do not see a court saying it's a First Amendment violation to participate in a private discussion at a semi-private venue. But then again, were a court to decide creating a forum thread is an equivalent to a Twitter page (creates a forum for 1A purposes), that would implicate the First Amendment. But, I don't know that the issue would be equivalent, given that this hypothetical politician would not have administrative control over who sees what (likely not a moderator).

[UNM1136]

Yeah, no. The government didn't create the twitter venue. It is wholly owned by a private company who can delete any account for any reason, or no reason at all. I am tired of Trumps tweets, and could care less who he blocks. This is just like those calling the whole take a knee movement as a First Amendment issue. Your rights are abbreviated by when and where they are exercised. The .gov is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with your constitutional rights, but as a contractual matter you do not have the same rights on your employer's time, or on another's property. How many of you don't carry at work because company policy makes it a firing offense? At work I am prohibited from engaging in political speech if I am on the clock. Heck, my 4th Amendment rights are contractually abridged as my bosses can search my locker at any time, for no reason, without a warrant. My 5th Amendment rights are abbreviated during internal affairs questioning under Garrity (I am required under conditions of employment in the course of an internal affairs investigation to answer all questions truthfully or be terminated, which in criminal matters is coercive and grounds to have all susequent evidence suppressed, as well as the statement. In an internal affairs investigation all evidence gained after a coerced statement is useable against you). Do you believe you have to allow BLM to protest on your front lawn beause they have the right to peacably assemble and freedom of speech?

While the ruling seems logical on its face, it stems from a false premise, therefore, logically, cannot be correct. Each twitter user agrees to twitter's terms and conditions , or twitter can close and delete your account should you violate the terms and conditions. Or twitter can close your account because an unkown, unaccountable admin arbitrarily decided that you don't need to be tweeting. This is a private company, and by the ability to close or delete your account denies you access to their services. I seriously doubt the same judge would rule that twitter denying you access to thier services is a violation of your First Amendment rights.

pat

[Drang]

So what are the implications for Twitter and Facebook shadowbanning "conservatives"?

[UNM1136]

I completely agree with this ruling. Donald Trump uses twitter as a forum to air his thoughts and policy. He should not be able to limit the viewing of this material, I mean for fucks sake it is supposed to be recorded by the library of congress.

As I recall Obama had to give up his blackberry so that his texts and emails could be archived, and the whole HRC affair involves the use of a private server and non-govermental cell phones to get around the archiving laws. Since Trump is an employee of the American electorate, I am totally OK with our elected representatives creating a law that keeps POTUS off of twitter, or twitter can decide to stop giving him a venue in the interest of archival of presidental statements. Either of those would be great, but not likely to happen. The ruling would be spot on if twitter were a goverment informational utility, or if it cited twitter as stepping around the federal archiving requirements.

Whether I like it or not he is taking advantage of a legal service provided by a private company. There are mechanisms available to fix it, but I don't see any of the capable parties having the spine to take a stand. My only real problem with the ruling is the minor flaw it seems to be based on, which as we all know as pistol shooters is a small error at the muzzle results in a drastic miss downrange. I very frequently see small flaws, when accepted as fact, balloon into huge, nearly insurmountable legal obsticles, like the current trends in DWI caselaw. Locally theTorres decision is 20 years old, and not a single prosecutor statewide has been able to come up with an arguement that makes admissable our most accurate, least intrusive sobriety test, that is admissible in every other state of the union. All because a clever defense attorney made a convincing argument the science needed to be ignored without expert testimony explaining the neurological/opthamological causes behind an observable effect of alcohol in the bloodstream at a specific concentration. BUT the other two tests, using the same science, does not need expert testimony to explain the observable effects alcohol has while in the bloodstream and are admissable, while being less accurate, and requiring more from the suspect. The Torres decision is widely regarded as bad caselaw, but has yet to be overturned.

The largest problem with minor flaws in legal decision comes well downstream of the decision itself. Unintended consequences and such.

pat

[Rex G]

I knew that birds twittered. The President twitters? Is he a bird?

[Trooper224]

Trump, acting as the POTUS, has chosen to use twitter as a public forum thereby negating any rights he has as a private citizen in that context. Good ruling.

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah, no. The government didn't create the twitter venue. It is wholly owned by a private company who can delete any account for any reason, or no reason at all.

But that applies to basically all media in the US. We don't really have an equivalent to BBC. Newspapers, broadcast tv, etc.

I think the argument isn't that Twitter could delete it and then nobody have access. He could stop tweeting tomorrow and that's fine. But as long as he is tweeting, anyone who wants to be able to read it should be able to, since he's discussing policy with it.

[hufnagel]

So, question: does this apply to both twitter accounts he uses (@POTUS and @realDonaldTrump) or just the POTUS one? I can see the argument of blocking as being for (@realDonaldTrump) and against (@POTUS), as one is personal and one is public.

[UNM1136]

Maybe you guys are right...but a couple of things still gnaw. Broadcast media are private companies, who nearly sell their souls for access to heavily federally regulated public air waves. Print media much less so until shipped by USPS. Cable is regulated like a utility...

I could be conflating issues, but I still doubt the same judge would rule that twitter has to provide a First Amendment platform for an unpopular private citizen. Is there a slippery slope here? Are congress critters in the same boat discussing policy? Prolly not. Political appointees? How about candidates? To what political level? I still think the participants in a free market are better placed to decide this.

The aggrieved parties are still receiving his tweets; my local news has a segment of every broadcast every day to broadcast every tweet he sends. I just checked and Google gets you his feed. I am not a twitter guy but it took me less than a minute to find and read and bookmark and unbookmark his feed without logging in or even having a twitter account myself. What am I missing?

His ego won't allow this but how nice would it be for Trump to pout and refuse to tweet any more?

Maybe I am not as informed on this as I thought I was.

pat

[JodyH]

This ruling should also apply to ALL elected officials talking politics on Twitter, facebook, YouTube...
This will unleash some epic trolling of everybody from the city council to Senators, SCOTUS judges and the POTUS.

If this ruling stands it will be the end of social media as a political tool... which will be freaking awesome for conservatives.

[Chance]

But as long as he is tweeting, anyone who wants to be able to read it should be able to, since he's discussing policy with it.

They can still read them, you just have to log out of the service first. Being able to get your responses seen is evidently the crux of the matter, if I'm understanding this correctly.

[BehindBlueI's]

They can still read them, you just have to log out of the service first. Being able to get your responses seen is evidently the crux of the matter, if I'm understanding this correctly.

No, it says he can mute people so their response isn't seen. Just not block so they can't see his. Unless I'm not understanding it.


if Trump's goal were merely to get annoying users to stop bothering him, he could accomplish that goal just as well using the mute button. This button prevents tweets from muted accounts from showing up in Trump's timeline and notifications, but it doesn't prevent muted users from replying to and retweeting Trump's tweets. The fact that Trump chose to block users instead suggests that his goal was to prevent them from communicating with others.

[Drang]

This ruling should also apply to ALL elected officials talking politics on Twitter, facebook, YouTube...
This will unleash some epic trolling of everybody from the city council to Senators, SCOTUS judges and the POTUS.

If this ruling stands it will be the end of social media as a political tool... which will be freaking awesome for conservatives.

I was just going to post:
Just the President, or any elected official?
Just Federal, or at all levels?
Just elected, or appointed as well?
How about hired?

[JodyH]

I was just going to post:
Just the President, or any elected official?
Just Federal, or at all levels?
Just elected, or appointed as well?
How about hired?
I anticipate a LOT of lawsuits being filed on behalf of blocked/banned users for access to their elected representatives.
This has the potential to completely gut one of the lefts most powerful tools.
Another interesting tidbit, by the Judge ruling that Twitter is a "public-forum" that means it opens them up to public scrutiny and regulation when it comes to free speech and arbitrarily banning users (especially conservatives).
Boom!... headshot. Twitter (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) is dead as a propaganda arm of the progressives if this ruling stands.
They can no longer operate as a "my house, my rules" entity if they're a public-forum. As a public-forum they will have to respect the 1st amendment much like a governmental entity.

I find it hilarious that a Boomer Clinton appointed progressive liberal Federal Judge just shot the progressive movement in the head with a ruling on subject she was probably completely ignorant about.
Talk about unintended consequences. She thought she could shut up Trump but this will pretty much destroy the lefts social media dominance.
:cool:

[TAZ]

I anticipate a LOT of lawsuits being filed on behalf of blocked/banned users for access to their elected representatives.
This has the potential to completely gut one of the lefts most powerful tools.
Another interesting tidbit, by the Judge ruling that Twitter is a "public-forum" that means it opens them up to public scrutiny and regulation when it comes to free speech and arbitrarily banning users (especially conservatives).
Boom!... headshot. Twitter (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) is dead as a propaganda arm of the progressives if this ruling stands.
They can no longer operate as a "my house, my rules" entity if they're a public-forum. As a public-forum they will have to respect the 1st amendment much like a governmental entity.

I find it hilarious that a Boomer Clinton appointed progressive liberal Federal Judge just shot the progressive movement in the head with a ruling on subject she was probably completely ignorant about.
Talk about unintended consequences. She thought she could shut up Trump but this will pretty much destroy the lefts social media dominance.
:cool:

As much as I agree with you in principle, reality will be quite different. Twitter, Facebook, Google will do as they please. Ban, shadow ban, double secret probation ban all the conservatives they want. Nobody is going to do squat. Trump will abide by the ruling as will other law biding folks. Liberal shitheads will do as they want, like they do today.

[RevolverRob]

Regardless of if Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube are privately held corporations, the user material they host is publicly available (when public and not private). No one is arguing that private communications remain private. The issue at hand is what it takes for a private forum to become public. Given the ability to remain (relatively) anonymous on the internet, Trump could have a private account under the pseudonym "Rock Kickass" and tweet at whomever he wanted and the judge would likely not have ruled that Trump could not block people to his Rock Kickass account, as long as he 1) Intended to remain anonymous. 2) Did not discuss public policy.

Once a forum, privately owned or publicly owned, becomes a place for public discussion of policy by a state-authorized actor - it falls into this realm where access to it cannot be denied. That's the argument of the judge here. Twitter could delete all of Trump's account and all of his tweets and nothing would happen, because Twitter is not a state-authorized actor, but when Trump does it, he denies the rights of citizens to a public forum and violates their civil rights. It's really quite simple, if, without Trump's intervention, all material he tweets is otherwise freely available? Then he cannot deny the right of citizens to read it using a block function.

That is again, why I like this ruling. It's relatively clear and narrow in scope while citing historical precedent. Trump on Twitter is no different than Trump standing on a private driveway while talking public policy to a rally. No citizen can be blocked from viewing/reading/hearing that information just because he is standing on private ground.

Now, what constitutes public vs. private discussion of policy? While that is a muddier issue, my general understanding is that it involves only a few people and is held "behind closed doors" and is one-on-one/one-on-few. Plus where POTUS is concerned, things can be designated secret without issue.