SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's practice of blocking Twitter users who are critical of him from seeing his posts on the social media platform violates the First Amendment, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.
The ruling came in a case brought by seven Twitter users who had been blocked by the @realDonaldTrump account after they criticized the president.
The plaintiffs, who were joined in the suit by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, claimed that Mr. Trump's Twitter feed is an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
In her ruling, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote of the plaintiffs that "the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment" and that Mr. Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, "exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
See also: http://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-statements/:
When asked at a press briefing whether Trump's tweets qualify as official statements on behalf of the White House, Spicer said that he "is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @03:29PM (50 children)
Premise
So apparently if you're president now you legally have no private life. I mean, pragmatically maybe you didn't already because paparazzi, but yeah.
If Trump's Twatter account is official government announcements, does that mean that he can't leak information on it? Because any leak is designated as on purpose, and official government policy?
Would seem to imply that Trump is going to be held to the things he says on Twitter, which is a bit laughable.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @03:33PM (10 children)
This is how they handle blocks on Twitter? I would think it would make more sense to do it the other way around, i.e. they can see what you do but *you* can't see anything *they* do. Which would include if Twitter has any private messaging system?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Friday May 25 2018, @03:45PM (1 child)
Both are options, you can mute them in which case you can't see their posts. Or you can block them where they also can't see yours. Muting was found to be acceptable, blocking not, guess which one Trump uses.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @04:02PM
Ah, okay. I've never really looked at Twitter for any length of time.
lol
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:14PM (7 children)
The fact that Twitter allows people to block certain respondents clearly demonstrates it was the intent of the developers that this feature be available as a routine part of the twitter environment. The judge has decided to politicize that.
District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald is a Clinton appointee. Did anybody actually expect a different ruling?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday May 25 2018, @07:40PM (6 children)
I didn't expect a different ruling, because this is not a partisan act. This is BIPARTISAN. Orange Anus does not get to decide who can, and who cannot, listen to OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
The platform of Twitter and the developer's intentions are wholly irrelevant to the main points being discussed:
Both questions are incredibly clear in their answer, and backed up by his former press secretary. ALL of his public communications (communications with an open ended recipient list, or a fucking wildcard *) are official communications, and therefore subject to the laws of the United States of America. That fucking bastard is not above the law! I don't think you agree anybody is either, unless the conversation devolves into a hopeless partisan quagmire.
What was decided by the court, which is most certainly not a partisan swipe against Trump, is the answer to #2 is that EVERY CITIZEN has the right to hear official communications from the tippity top of the Executive Branch.
With all due respect, Frojack, your attempt to make this an invalid partisan decision is utter bullshit. Trump does not have the right to block citizens from listening to his official communications. Even if over half of America just waits to pounce on him and deride whatever he said.
You know who can control who can listen to leaders? Dictators, and the Monarchy before the fucking Magna Carta. Such bullshit has no place in America, and is antithetical to the principles of Freedom.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:51PM
If the president is speaking at the press room in the whitehouse, that is official speech. You get to attend.
Listening to it from somebody else is clearly not a substitute. You have the right to see it yourself.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @11:58PM (1 child)
Orange Anus does not get to decide who can, and who cannot, listen to OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
Pay attention children this is how you continue to act butt hurt over a loss to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:25AM
Again you dumbfucks, you try to make it partisan. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, Republicans or Democrats, loose constructionists versus strict constructionists, etc.
It has everything to do with what constitutes official speech from our leaders, what laws govern said official speech, and can a leader forcibly restrict *specific* citizens from hearing his public addresses. All very easy to answer questions, unless your partisan, or completely lack the ability to put forth in cogent reasoning for why the speech is either unofficial, or that not all citizens are equal in who can receive the content of official speech.
All the efforts to make it partisan just show how intellectually impotent you all are. Meaning, the ones who abandon all reason and good sense to defend the positions of Trump, No. Matter. What.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)
Hey sanctimunous twat, your life is so rich. I hope your Trump Derangement Syndrome doesnt flare up and cause an anurism.
I'm loving life right now. Thank you POTUS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @03:58PM
Go drink some vodka Ivan, you're kissing the wrong booty again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27 2018, @06:38AM
But should public announcements require an account to see said communications? Can't you search @realdonaldtrump on google and see them while being logged out, even if blocked?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @04:17PM (14 children)
When you're broadcasting messages in a forum of millions, no. This is saying that the President does not have the right to discriminate against individuals from the larger population.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @04:36PM (13 children)
You're begging the question. This assumes that he's acting officially on behalf of the government. I assume anything he says on Twitter are more Tourette's outbursts that may or may not be even marginally connected to reality.
If he's not speaking in an official capacity, he is free to discriminate against anyone he likes.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)
And the insanity continues. Never before Trump would people consider such things. If he mentions anything about US business it becomes official. This deranged schizophrenic idea that the President can say things but we have to guess if they are valid or not, well it is too much. We have a child president but I say the special treatment ends now. Next time he puts his foot in his mouth, via Twitter or otherwise, make him eat it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @05:46PM (2 children)
And then he's too much of a special little snowflake to handle any criticism on top of it all.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be against that kind of stuff...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @07:13PM
The cons have shown their true colors, they're cons! they stand for nothing but gains
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:33PM
They are, this is straight from the conservative play book: We're against this stuff, we've done it all our lives and know how bad it is, so you shouldn't do it - in fact, we'll pass laws saying you shouldn't do it (but, as for us, we'll keep on doing it because we can't help ourselves - but it's bad, very bad we tell you, and it must end NOW!)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:47PM
Thing is, there was a press release where his representative (Spicer at the time) stated that the feed was official.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @05:40PM (3 children)
And I agree - but, as the current President of the country, he is broadcasting these outbursts to millions of people around the world, and I agree with the decision that: if any US citizen, anywhere, wishes to receive these outbursts in the same timely manner as the majority of the US population is able to, they should be able to do that and not arbitrarily discriminated against like some loser kid in the 3rd grade who never gets invited to anybody's birthday party even though the invitations are handed out at school. O.K. - less than perfect structural analogy, but the emotional sentiment is there.
What is totally ridiculous here is that Trump could just use Mute and be compliant - is it that hard for his IT staff to help him with that?
And I agree - if he's not speaking in an official capacity, but I suppose I disagree in that: if he's speaking to potentially millions of citizens, that's an official capacity - no matter how brain-fogged he might be while doing so. Rolling this back 100 years: something the President said while in a restaurant with a few dozen people around might be considered non-official, whereas something he said over megaphones, repeated by criers to thronging crowds of hundreds of citizens, is an official statement - no matter if he was drunk and delirious at the time, that's his bad judgement for opening his mouth in a public forum, and our bad judgement for putting him in the Oval Office to start with, but no less official.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:25PM (2 children)
He, (and I) reject your assertion, and allow the president to speak his mind without it rising to an official action, based on YOUR opinion of the size of the Audience. Never before has audience size been a criteria.
There are MANY officially recognized ways for a president to make an official proclamation, and Twitter isn't one of them.
All of the official methods involve written and published statements with signatures witnessed by other officials.
Expressing an opinion is not something you've ever denied to any other president. Why start now, just because your liberal butt hurts?
You, (most specifically you), are never given any status to make such a decision as to what is official.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:12PM
Except that the White House says that it is.
And we the people, as voiced by the court, are not denying the orange oaf his right to speak wherever and however he wishes, opinion, fact, deluded fantasies, all fair and available.
What has been judged by the court as inappropriate is for the President to censor his speech, deny access to it to selected persons who desire to hear it.
I presume to repeat what the court has already decreed. If the orange one feels himself to be above the court's judgement: bring it on, the impeachment will go that much faster and certainly.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @09:50PM
It is staggering how far you conservatives bend over for Trump. I really don't get it, one "strongman" puffs up his chest and suddenly all your personal integrity and morals go out the window. Trump's scandals should have put him at 0.2% polling with Republicans, but for some reason he could do no wrong. What really bothers me is that if it was a Democrat Prez doing this you'd be ALL up in their shit about it.
The "essay" below really did nail it right on the head, you conservative types are 100% led by your hatred. At least Obama ran on a campaign of hope before he won and sold out. Trump has increased the level of hatred and division beyond reason, and yet we see the Christian base continue to support him. The power of propaganda folks!
Don't worry, liberals had enough blame during Obama's time with not pulling out the pitchforks as he bailed on promise after promise. However I still didn't see the rabid defenders dropping everything they stand for just to support their side of the aisle.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday May 25 2018, @06:24PM (3 children)
And you would be wrong with one of those statements. The administration has already stated that what is he writes using his twitter account is government policy.
You would be correct that they are likely to not be connected to reality.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday May 25 2018, @07:28PM (2 children)
There's a different way to look at it. It's official policy that *whatever* plane the U.S President is on has its call sign changed to "Air Force One". Unless I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about that. So you may be able to look at it as wherever, and however, the President addresses the people, it intrinsically becomes official communications.
He's a fucking dipshit showman, so he's quite used to the idea of exclusivity and controlling who can see him and can't see him. That's a pretty standard practice in entertainment and marketing. That's long gone though the instant the inauguration was performed.
Whether he likes it or not, the inane babbling coming out of his mouth is official. I don't believe the President could even speak in unofficial capacity. It's like the Pope saying, "Okay, just for the next few minutes I'm not speaking as the Pope..". Nobody would believe that, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for church members to still interpret it as official Pope communications.
The only exceptions I believe, are when the President is clearly not addressing the people at all, but is involved in private meetings considering classified information and operations. Even then, I do believe that the minutes of the meeting are recorded for posterity, but not available for decades likely.
In the end, that horrid man must accept that he is *EVERYONE'S* President, and then he does not have the moral or legal authority to deny a citizen the contents of his official speech. I don't even believe he can mute people, because we have a right to address our politicians and list our grievances.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:23PM (1 child)
An aircraft flown by the marines is Marine One. (that fat green helicopter) An aircraft flown by the navy is Navy One. (for example, Bush going to the aircraft carrier) An aircraft flown by the army is Army One.
Everything else is Executive One. Nixon did it, flying on United as some sort of endorsement for commercial aviation. It would be Executive One if Trump flew in his personal jet.
I suppose that means a wingsuit or hang glider can be Executive One.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:57AM
Did they break his guitar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday May 25 2018, @04:57PM (9 children)
There's shifting the goal posts, and then there's what you said. How exactly does twitter constitute as private life, ESPECIALLY when it is being used by Trump in his capacity as president? Maybe if he had limited to his tweets to cat videos and other personal things, then sure. But no, he's been continually making tweets regarding policy and other government matters.
I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to have it both ways. Trump is president, and whether he likes it or not, that comes with *gasp* responsibilities and limitations. At least until he manages to get the Republicans to give him dictator status.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @05:42PM (8 children)
ESPECIALLY when it is being used by Trump in his capacity as president?
And, also, ESPECIALLY when government funds are being used to operate the account.
FTA:
In her ruling, Judge Buchwald said Mr. Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account.”
Dan Scavino is paid by us, not Trump.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday May 25 2018, @06:37PM (6 children)
Being fair, seeing how Trump donated his own salary (some $400k) to the treasury, I think we can look the other way when Dan Scavino ($180k) goes through his tweets a couple of times a day.
Money aside, a workable technical solution could be for Twitter to implement subscribe-able blacklists. So, when you subscribe to someone's feed, you'll have the option to also subscribe to their blacklist or anyone's blacklist for that matter. This could also resolve the censorship problem Twitter and Facebook are facing with regards to moderation: They can run multiple lists registering certain accounts under one violation or the next, and let people choose to do what they like with it. Hate speech... Sexual content... Troll... Democrat/Republican... Cat lovers... You'll have separate lists for everything moderated by 3rd parties. So people will elect their censor of choice to manage it or just blacklist people on their own. Then, if you see a developed thread where one party is blacklisted while another is seemingly discussing a topic you want to hear, you'd click the whitespace and the whole thread will open up without the censoring. You can even do a moderation system similar to soylent on top of it with scores and groups of moderators running their own hierarchies and stuff...
Basically, when people put you in a box it's a prison. But when you put yourself in a box it's your home.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @06:53PM (2 children)
I think we can look the other way when Dan Scavino ($180k) goes through his tweets a couple of times a day.
No, I don't think we can look the other way when government employees violate people's constitutional rights.
That's kind of a big deal, actually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @01:14AM
Two years of "Muh Russia" conspiracies and this is the best you got? He blocks people on Twitter... wow. Best oart of this 4d masterpiece is now and Dem who blocks people on Twitter will look like a hypocrate. I cant wait till they start getting clubbered on their own platform.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:45AM
Please. Just because the law hasn't caught up with giving private forums protections from defamation doesn't mean we should be treating Twitter and other social networking like public forums and press like some mindless legal drones. We both know it doesn't make a lick of sense not to let officials moderate their social accounts. The white-house was filtering the media allowed into the press briefings for years and no thought it's unreasonable. When presidents and secretaries attended private parties and gave speeches, no one suggested uninvited people should be allowed in to make counter speeches. And on the money issue, when "free" speech was written into law, it would have cost you a newspaper press and a publishing company distribution network.
Stop being too pedantic about the constitution. The right to bare arms doesn't mean you get to carry a nuke with you. The right to free speech doesn't mean you get to yell "Fire!" in a crowded hall, defame or circumvent someone's IP. There were always restrictions. Some specified by the letter of the law. Others by the technology of the times. I think any public official should be allowed to reach to their public without having the opposition take front row seats to toss tomatoes at their face during their speech. We can sort through this technically or legally, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't operate a representative democracy when candidates and representatives can't reach the public since their opposition is attacking them at every speech.
Even if we wanted to make every speech platform into a debate platform, people, elected officials or otherwise, would have a say against whom they are debating. Maybe a more direct form of democracy is better suited for the information age. But right now, presidents are executives and should only answer to congress, the house and the courts. If people don't like what he's saying, they should vote for a better president and/or congress men that would ask in their stead.
Overall, meh.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:38PM
Has f-all to do with what?
The president's salary is a gnat's turd on the ass of an elephant riding great blue whales across the oceans, flanked by schools of millions of sharks, tuna, turtles and dolphin.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @09:56PM (1 child)
He donated his salary as a PR move, he's making WAY more money by simply being the president. However it is a really good sound bite for morons who can't see beyond the surface details. "He's so rich he's donating 400k to help fix the government!!!" laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl
Trump pegged you tards from the start, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
Y'all are suckers and got taken for a massive ride by a conman. The sooner you come to terms with that the better for literally everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:42PM
By simply being the president, he has lost about a billion dollars.
Sure, I'd have voted for him if he stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot someone. He couldn't have shot Vince Foster and Seth Rich.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:29PM
So, you thing twitter gets paid by people who tweet?
How very naive [quora.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @05:37PM (7 children)
So apparently if you're president now you legally have no private life.
If it was actually private the decision may have gone the other way.
It's not, though, he's got Whitehouse staffers operating the Twitter account. Those are public employees.
So he's using taxpayer money to run the account and the courts say that makes it a government account. It's not that illogical.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @05:47PM (1 child)
He does? If so they're doing a pretty shoddy job of keeping him from making a fool of himself.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @06:04PM
He does? If so they're doing a pretty shoddy job of keeping him from making a fool of himself.
They can't fix Trump so they actually purposely make themselves sound dumber:
Trump's staff ghostwrites some of his tweets and inserts grammatical errors to make them seem authentic [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:31PM (4 children)
No, he doesn't have whitehouse staffers operating the account.
They might look at it once in a while, but they specifically do not operate it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @08:13PM (2 children)
No, he doesn't have whitehouse staffers operating the account.
This is the stipulation of facts [knightcolumbia.org] from the case. (wherein both parties agree to a mutual set of facts upon which to base the case)
12. Defendant Daniel Scavino is the White House Social Media Director and
Assistant to the President and is sued in his official capacity only. Mr. Scavino posts messages
on behalf of President Trump to @realDonaldTrump and other social media accounts, including
@POTUS and @WhiteHouse. Mr. Scavino has access to the @realDonaldTrump account,
including the access necessary to block and unblock individuals from the @realDonaldTrump
account.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday May 26 2018, @04:26AM (1 child)
Now I'm wondering if the guy who posts here as The Real Donald Trump is actually Scavino or his minions?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:00AM
I don't know if it is one of Scavino or his minions, but if he isn't then they should hire him. I was starting to wonder if it was actually The Donald.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:38PM
Does it hurt your ego to be constantly wrong? Have you thought about maybe branching out in your belief system?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday May 25 2018, @05:57PM (2 children)
He can have a private life. In private. Take his family to a private dinner -- assuming they can stand to be around him. Topic for dinner, how many other pr0n stars did you pay off during your campaign?
When he does something that is deliberately public, related to official United States policy, then that's about as public a forum as it gets.
I want to do something in private, so I'll put it on Twitter, Facebook, etc in order to keep it really sooper seekrit private!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:41PM (1 child)
This one is #friendsonly
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by edIII on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:34AM
Well fuck, I owe Trump an apology. He used the Konami code, correctly.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)
Yeah right. Last I checked, Twitter was specifically a public forum, not some private E2E encrypted direct messaging system.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @07:01PM
You knobs are all interpreting "public vs. private" as "can people see when I do this vs. is it secret" instead of "is this a part of my job vs. is this something I am doing personally."
Maybe my terminology was suboptimal, but come on. Use a brain cell or two.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday May 26 2018, @02:34AM
You pretty much don't: Not just because of the paparazzi, but because you are required to report a great deal of your activities to the public. Plus you are at beck and call of the job at all hours of the day, because, for instance, you might get the proverbial 3 AM phone call, and not answering it now means you have a nuclear war on your hands.
the reason you're required to report so much to the public is that the public is your boss. Think of it this way: If you did allow presidents to have a private life, they could and will be bribed and blackmailed even more than they already are, and hide that from the public by saying "that's private".
More to the point, you certainly can't describe statements made to the public via the Internet as part of your private life. A pre-Internet version of what Trump's position is: He wants to be able to hold a press conference and say that only Breitbart can report on what is said about it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.