Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Trump's Twitter blocks violate First Amendment rights, appeals court affirms
It's one thing for most of us to block Twitter users who annoy us, but it's a violation of those users' First Amendment rights for the president to do so, a federal appeals court confirmed.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday issued an opinion supporting an earlier federal court ruling that as long as Donald Trump is a public official, he cannot block people (which prevents them from reading his feed or responding to his comments) he disagrees with on Twitter.
The opinion (PDF) is narrow, specific, and unanimous, with all three judges concurring. "We do not consider or decide whether an elected official violates the Constitution by excluding persons from a wholly private social media account," the judges write, "Nor do we consider whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms."
But, they continue, "The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.... Once the President has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with."
"The irony of all this," the opinion concludes, "is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide-open, robust debate. This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."
[Update 20190713_080924 UTC: Part of what distinguishes this case from other politician's use of twitter is that on June 6, 2017 it was reported:
At the daily White House press briefing, press secretary Sean Spicer said the President's tweets are considered official White House statements, saying the President is the "most effective messenger on his agenda."
--martyb]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @08:05AM (4 children)
Because it just happens I don't like the American life-style. Can you blame me for it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @10:38AM (3 children)
Even if it is the part of "American life-style" you dislike the most.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @11:09AM (2 children)
Your mistake (no, I don't dislike free speech, I dislike irresponsible speech).
Your problem if you blame me for it, it's inconsequential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by hemocyanin on Friday July 12 2019, @03:10PM (1 child)
That's a dodge, a way to justify censorship to oneself and still feel like an anti-authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @11:21PM
Lemme guess, you parents never taught you about things that, for example, are not nice to say, actually rude.
Or did you just forget their lessons?
Common-sense, mate. It has a meaning (and that meaning doesn't overlap with 'dodge').
If you drive the common-sense of your population out of whack with the rest of the world, don't be surprised if the rest of the world will not like you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford