Judge rules that President Trump can't block people on Twitter

[VforV]

No one is above the law. Trump should put a sticker on his MAGA hat XD

 

[penn919]

Assuming one never subscribes to Donald Trump, how can they block Donald Trump? Does one automatically get Donald Trump's crap when they make a Twitter account?

I did. Twitter would literally email me all of his tweets even though I never followed him. I had to block him too.

 

[davislane1]

No one is above the law.

Unless your last name is Clinton.

 

[wiyosaya]

Unless your last name is Clinton.

According to several, tax-payer funded republican investigations.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

I'm not even going to address this comment as you are suggesting removing basic gun licensing and the distinction between civilian and military class weapons including the sale of IEDs.

You just did address it... licensing requirements are technically a violation of 2A the way it is written. Now I for one think 2A is written too loosely and needs to be changed, but that probably isn't going to happen. And I don't think anyone would consider planting and using an IED against others to be part of the "right to bear arms". Planting and using an IED against others would be an act of terrorism. IED's can be created now, legally, with no violation of "gun control laws". So the fact you are even bringing that up seems odd.

 

[Evernessince]

You just did address it... licensing requirements are technically a violation of 2A the way it is written. Now I for one think 2A is written too loosely and needs to be changed, but that probably isn't going to happen. And I don't think anyone would consider planting and using an IED against others to be part of the "right to bear arms". Planting and using an IED against others would be an act of terrorism. IED's can be created now, legally, with no violation of "gun control laws". So the fact you are even bringing that up seems odd.

It depends on how you read the "well regulated militia" part but it would certainly be more helpful if they could make define it clearly.

"Planting and using an IED against others would be an act of terrorism"

I was just pointing out that was covered by the GCA you mentioned earlier.

I don't see 3/4rths of all states agreeing on making a change to the 2nd amendment though.

 

[Milest]

Isn't the president allowed to give what's called an 'Exclusive interview' to members of the press? How is blocking some people any different? This judge is an *****.

 

[psycros]

I see TS deleted yet another of my comment's. I can't even fathom why this time..there was NOTHING even remotely controversial or construable as offensive. To reiterate:

What a great precedent. Now NO politician can block ANYONE in ANY media format without facing the wrath of salivating class action attorneys. Can't wait for the next instance of a liberal politician having their detractors dragged out of their town hall meetings, which is the usual practice.

 

[penn919]

Isn't the president allowed to give what's called an 'Exclusive interview' to members of the press? How is blocking some people any different? This judge is an *****.

The term "exclusive interview" has always been a bit of a misnomer and a marketing gimmick. Interviews are usually granted one at a time and are never exactly the same. Typically public figures have done multiple "exclusive" interviews in their past and will do more in the future. Also, it would be illegal for the president to ban a network from showing the interview to particular people.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Apart from Trump being generally obnoxious on Twitter, it is not a government provided service so he absolutely has the right to block people on it. YT is violating people's 1A rights yet the judge has nothing to say about that... interesting.

While I agree, it seems that the court decided that since Trump is using Twitter as a public official, people who are tweeting him can argue that his account is now "public domain" and therefore he cannot block these people.

My argument would be what happens if someone tweets something blatantly racist/homophobic/vulgar/etc.... that post would, I assume, go against Twitter's usage policy, and could be taken down.... but by Trump? Or only by Trump reporting it to Twitter admins and having them block/ban the user?

Honestly, if public officials must have Twitter accounts (I'm not truly convinced they need one, but that's a different conversation), perhaps Twitter should be making special "Public Official" accounts that have specific rules (like no-blocking) and are verified, etc...

As always, technology has outraced legislation.... now they try and catch up

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," wrote the judge. 'The answer to both questions is no."

The "block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed" covers this. Racist/homophobic remarks are already established as non-protected speech, so he would be within his rights to block someone tweeting things like that.