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: 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.