Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday July 12 2019, @05:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the tweets-are-for-birds dept.

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]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday July 12 2019, @01:42PM (4 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday July 12 2019, @01:42PM (#866225)

    The correct solution is for the President of the United States to GET THE FUCK OFF OF TWITTER! A president has absolutely no business posting on a privately owned and operated web site like Twitter.

    Make announcements available through a government run site. There is no need for any kind of direct commenting.

    Of course, if they did that then Trump would have to stop posting dumb shit, and that isn't going to happen.

    If Twitter ever becomes a purely public service like city/state roads then that is a different story.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 12 2019, @03:17PM (1 child)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday July 12 2019, @03:17PM (#866262) Journal

    What if your post read: The correct solution is for the President of the United States to GET THE FUCK OFF OF TELEVISION! A president has absolutely no business delivering a speech on a privately owned and operated TV station like NBC ....

    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday July 12 2019, @04:48PM

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday July 12 2019, @04:48PM (#866305)

      If he still had his own TV show, yes, that would absolutely apply.

      If he used one specific network to exclusively make live announcements, then yes, that would also apply.

      Imagine if ABC/CBS/FOX news always had to report "And today Donald Trump announced on NBC that such and such..." That would be very wrong.

      As it is, speeches are not usually JUST given on TV or to one network. They are given to an audience, and TV stations choose to cover that. [flips channel]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @08:01PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @08:01PM (#866371)

    The correct solution is for the President of the United States to GET THE FUCK OFF OF TWITTER! A president has absolutely no business posting on a privately owned and operated web site like Twitter.

    So does he have any business answering questions from privately owned media companies? By your logic he does not. So he can rule without explaining himself. GREAT!

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @08:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @08:19PM (#866380)

      That makes no sense. Next time use a car analogy.