Federal Judge Rules Trump Cannot Block Critics on Twitter
A U.S. district judge ruled yesterday that President Donald Trump legally cannot block certain users on Twitter based on their political views as it violates the First Amendment rights of his constituents.
In presiding over what is clearly the first legal proceeding ever to revolve around the President's social media habits, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of New York’s Southern District found that Trump cannot blockTwitter users from following or reading his commentaries on @realDonaldTrump simply because he disagrees with online critics, as social media accounts run by elected or appointed government officials are deemed to be public forums.
Essentially, because Trump uses Twitter to announce policy decisions, such as the ban on transgender people in the military, it is vital for the public to be able to access @realDonaldTrump.
“We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the ‘interactive space’ where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the ‘public forum’ doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Buchwald.
While blocking may be unconstitutional, the judge suggested that if the president does not wish to hear dissenting opinions online, he can simply just block these uses, and maintain the sanctity of his digital safe space.
Filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute in July 2017, the suit named several other officials within the Trump administration, including Dan Scovino, the White House social media director, and Hope Hicks, former White House communications director. The organization represented the interests of at least seven parties who were blocked by Trump after foolishly responding to their President on a public forum: University of Maryland sociology professor Philip Cohen; Holly Figueroa, a political organizer and songwriter from Seattle; Dr. Eugene Gu of Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Police Officer Brandon Neely from Houston, Texas; Joseph Papp, a former professional cyclist and anti-doping advocate; New York comedy writer Nick Pappas New York; and political writer Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.
Within the lawsuit, seven blocked tweets from the following users: University of Maryland sociology professor Philip Cohen; Holly Figueroa, a political organizer and songwriter from Seattle; Dr. Eugene Gu of Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Police Officer Brandon Neely from Houston, Texas; Joseph Papp, a former professional cyclist and anti-doping advocate; New York comedy writer Nick Pappas New York; and political writer Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.
The seven blocked users expressed their excitement to once again enjoy the president’s many (sigh) many tweets today, announcing that they sued the president and won.
In addition to reporters and political writers from, but also celebrities like Chrissy Teigen, who tweeted about being freed from Twitter jail from the comfort of her couch.
well well well we meet again @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/WajEXiAQVi
— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) May 23, 2018
While the ruling instantly made the rounds in the news and social media, the White House has been curiously quiet on this matter so far, with the only official statement coming from a Justice Department spokeswoman who said "we respectfully disagree with the court's decision and are considering our next steps."
Share Pin
Olatcc
Good share!
Irene Lowe
via GIPHY
Bilbo Swaggins
Twitter has a "mute" function, he should use that instead
Commodore V
By that logic "Block" functions should be banned all together because it can suppress free speech.
I personally believe that president should be able to use a function in social media that everyone else can use.
Uatu
Any proof users are blocked due to their political opinions… I mean outside personal opinion linked to political accointance?
AliC202
I liked it better when this page 404'd
Jill
Someone edit that "Imprisoned for YouTube Crimes" Pop Team Epic image with Trump and "Impeached for Twitter Crimes".
AliC202
You do it, you're one of the mouth breathing admins/moderators obsessed with Trump
Jill
Jill
Was planning to do it but was pretty sure someone somewhere had already done it. But whatever, here it is anyways.
view the rest of this conversation →
-Kanrabat-
The bullshit level in this whole story is higher than Mont Olympus. For the simple fact that the President cannot block anyone, but everyone else can block everyone just fine.
"First amendment" my ass.
Jill
This would theoretically apply to any elected government official as they represent the government. Private citizens who do not hold a government position are not obligated to uphold all the tenets of the Constitution. However, where does it excatly end? Would officials not elected directly still be covered under it (like federal cabinet positions, ambassadors, etc.)? Would city employees like a local garbageman be covered under it? What about former elected officials that no longer hold public office but are still involved with politics?
-Kanrabat-
The one positive not that I can see here is if someone enter the category of "public figure", he/she would be forbidden to block anyone. So big shot feminists (or anyone self-important enough) would finally have listen to what is said outside their echo chamber. No matter how legit or nasty.
ObadiahtheSlim
Interesting ruling. I wonder what that means for other public platforms if they are now ruled to be covered under 1st amdnement protections and their current censorship policies.
SwirlMob
Since the ruling was based on the fact that Trump is a public figure, it'll probably mostly affect politicians. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future this ruling is applied to Senators and Congressmen.
ObadiahtheSlim
But the 1st amendment applies to all forms of protected speech, not just public figures.
SwirlMob
Yes, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies like Twitter. The reason why Trump blocking people was considered a First Amendment issue was because he's a public figure who often announces policy decisions over Twitter. Thus, journalists have a right to see his tweets.
view the rest of this conversation →
void void
Hey why was this broken for a day?