SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday July 12 2019, @05:15PM (2 children)
Nobody is arguing whether their ToS says that. The courts are slowly working themselves into a position where they will be forced to settle the question of whether they can say that and remain regulated as a neutral Platform. The problem for Big Social is that if a court ever firmly places them into either the Platform -OR- Publishers legal categories their current business model is dead and they have no real desire to accept the changes that would be required to survive. They will have to be forced into it, at gunpoint. Yes I'm being brutally honest about that, government is force.
This current legal skirmish isn't about the ToS, the corrupt judges in this ruling explicitly said they weren't imposing anything on Jack. By the ToS alone, Trump is perfectly entitled to use the block feature of twitter, just like any other. But the court ruled that while Mr. Trump is POTUS he can't make use of it. And I'm saying that is an unprincipled exception that will soon die under the weight of the contradictions it is going to create when they apply that rule to AOC and Jack simply banhammers anyone who annoys her, creating an effective violation of the principle the court is invoking to "get Trump."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:37PM (1 child)
I've noticed that you frequently have a rather macabre view of government. Is there no room in your political philosophy for consent of the governed?
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday July 13 2019, @09:01AM
If everyone is in agreement there isn't need for government involvement in that issue. It is when one group demands another group do something it doesn't want that government gets involved. At which point the more powerful group (not the most numerous) uses government to force the loser to obey. Or else. Because there has to be an "or else" or there would be no need to obey.
Government itself requires a rough consent of the governed to last long, but it can often manufacture that, especially with modern media and knowledge of propaganda techniques. And remember, the U.S. and England invented propaganda. Mr. H, he found himself on the opposing end of it in WWI and learned from the experience. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.