Window Licking Judge

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said in her ruling that Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by preventing certain Americans from viewing his tweets on @realDonaldTrump.

The social media platform, Buchwald said, is a "designated public forum" from which Trump cannot exclude individual plaintiffs.

[clip]

"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," Buchwald said said in her opinion.

"The answer to both questions is no."

[clip]

The Knight Institute's executive director, Jameel Jaffer, said in a prepared statement: "We're pleased with the court's decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform."

Jaffer added: "The President's practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end."

Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the institute, said, "The First Amendment prohibits government officials from suppressing speech on the basis of viewpoint ... The court's application of that principle here should guide all of the public officials who are communicating with their constituents through social media."

this is the Presidents PERSONAL Account NOT the White House or @Presidential Twitter ... besides if these people weren't being dicks ... they wouldn't be blocked

Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the institute, said, "The First Amendment prohibits government officials from suppressing speech on the basis of viewpoint ... The court's application of that principle here should guide all of the public officials who are communicating with their constituents through social media."


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html

how exactly is 'blocking' someone on Twitter suppressing 'their' speech, is twitter the only platform for communication :shrug: did I miss something
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
That means, at the most basic level, that Trump cannot block those who Tweet at him, even if -- actually, especially if -- those people are his critics. And, Buchwald says, merely noting that Trump's Tweets are available to blocked users if they simply log out of Twitter isn't enough, because the Constitution demands the government receive Twitter criticism directly -- the ability to reply and re-Tweet is part of the deal between a government official and a Twitter user.

When Trump blocks people, Buchwald continues, he's effectively exerting government control over a public forum, and both the law and the Constitution prohibit government control over a public forum outside of very narrowly tailored time, place, and manner restrictions. Trump certainly cannot simply block his critics without engaging in blatant viewpoint discrimination, Buchwald argues.

The decision is good news for Trump's Twitter trolls, like author Stephen King, who were part of the Federal lawsuit that ultimately produced this decision. They, for now, have the right to angrily re-Tweet and mention the President to their hearts' content (at least until the President's legal team applies for an injunction pending an appeal).


https://www.dailywire.com/news/31005/court-rules-president-donald-trump-cannot-block-emily-zanotti

well maybe there is a bright side .......

Democrats shouldn't start the party just yet, either. The decision applies to government officials across the board, so now serial blockers like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) will have to release their respective strangleholds.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I don't consider much of what these psychos tweet to Daddy or post on his FB wall to be "political commentary". In fact it's just profane ranting and hate spewing, and I don't think ANY American should have to be exposed to that.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I don't consider much of what these psychos tweet to Daddy or post on his FB wall to be "political commentary". In fact it's just profane ranting and hate spewing, and I don't think ANY American should have to be exposed to that.

It's the other way around. The idea that Trump has used his account to post political commentary.

It's hard to say if the 2CA will pick it up and/or disagree with this judge's ruling, but this judge's opinion has some level of plausibility to it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It's the other way around. The idea that Trump has used his account to post political commentary.

Well, whatever. I'm sick of seeing the spittling hate of these people. They need to be locked in mental institutions, not cut loose on the internet.

FB has privacy settings where people can read your posts but cannot post back. Twitter should implement something like that.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
What if he simply shuts down his account? Then what?....

The leftwing media would have nothing to report on.

I enjoy Trump's tweets and appreciate the communication. This has been the most direct contact President we've ever had, and I'd hate for that to end.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
this judge's opinion has some level of plausibility to it.

I have to say that i disagree. The idea of free speech does not in any way imply a responsibility to provide the platform.

If a politician is giving a speech now and is heckled, this judgment implies that it is a violation of the heckler's constitutional rights if the politician has the heckler removed.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
I have to say that i disagree. The idea of free speech does not in any way imply a responsibility to provide the platform.

If a politician is giving a speech now and is heckled, this judgment implies that it is a violation of the heckler's constitutional rights if the politician has the heckler removed.

The first amendment does not guarantee the right to hear another' speech. It guarantees (to some extent) the individual's right to make the speech. SCOTUS should be able to sweep this into the dust bin in 10 minutes.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I have to say that i disagree. The idea of free speech does not in any way imply a responsibility to provide the platform.

If a politician is giving a speech now and is heckled, this judgment implies that it is a violation of the heckler's constitutional rights if the politician has the heckler removed.

Here's the reasoning this judge used in her ruling:

1). Twitter (the space) is considered a public forum. The tweets are Trump's free speech, not a "designated public forum". However, the replies to those tweets is a public forum meaning replies can be seen by other members of the public. The ruling also made it clear that the public has no right to speak to the President and force him to listen/read. As mentioned earlier, Trump is free to use the Mute feature on Twitter to ignore who he wishes. He, instead, blocked people from the public forum.

2). Blocked users were free to read Trump's comments and even comment, but to do so they'd have to create a new account or other ways but the court found that this was an additional burden compared to non-blocked users. It may seem fairly insignificant, but the 1A protects against "de minimis" harms.

3). Trump, even though he created his account years before running, still operates the account in his official capacity as President and his tweets are considered offical records to be preserved under the Presidential Records Act. He's used Twitter during times he's appointed officers (like cabinet secretaries), he's removed officers, and foreign policy-related conduct. All functions of the President. In essense, while the account is listed as his personal account, he's used it as a presidential account and used it to "take actions that can only be taken by the President as President".

Also, and maybe more importantly, Trump had White House Social Media Director and Assistant to the President Daniel Scavino cloesly involved in his "personal" Twitter account.


I think each of those reasonings have some level of plausibility. However, previous rulings (Van Orden v. Perry) have pointed to the President being able to speak from his position and his words not necessarily being those of the govt.
Our leaders, when delivering public addresses, often express their blessings simultaneously in the service of God and their constituents. Thus, when public officials deliver public speeches, we recognize that their words are not exclusively a transmission from the government because those oratories have embedded within them the inherently personal views of the speaker as an individual member of the polity.
Most people recognize that Trump going out and making his "ra-ra" speaches are him as a person and not necessarily the President and the case about falls under the Establishment Clause of the 1A that essentially means that while the govt. is prohibited from endorsing a religion, governmental officials can express their religious views as individuals. Using that same case and Establishment Clause scenarios, I think it'll be hard for Trump to argue he can use governmental officials/staff to manage his personal Twitter account that is supposedly expressing his personal opinion/speech.


On the flip side, it's clear Trump's personal account is personal. He advocated for peopel to vote for certain politicians, complained about fake news, witch hunts, John Kerry, correspondents' dinner, and a number of other things that are obviously connected to him personally. This case was brought on by a group that only complained about being blocked by Trump's persdonal page, but not offical pages such as @POTUS, @PressSec, or @WhiteHouse, but this judge ruled that because he used WH staff, that it's no longer personal.

Now, to a point brought up by you and others, your right to free speech doesn't force anyone to listen to you. In 1984, SCOTUS ruled (in Minnesota BD. for Community Colleges v. Knight) that a "person's right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others." Your example of a heckler is perfect here.

Just as Trump has the ability to use the Mute function, the DoJ appeal will likely point to the fact that people can log out of twitter to see Trump's tweets or use incognito mode. This would be an argument for a "de minimis" harm.

It'll be appealed, but the decision will affect both sides of the aisle because both Democratic and Republican politicians across the country have blocked people. The judge in this case did not issue and injunction (that would force Trump to unblocked those people), only saying:
Though we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case...we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose…Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.

This only means that, should Trump choose to appeal (seems likely) Trump can't/doesn't have to ask for a stay pending the appeal.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The plaintiffs, which include a public interest group and seven individuals the president has blocked, claimed that Twitter was a public forum, one from which the president has unilaterally excluded them based on their political beliefs (namely, their criticism of him). Already this requires some creativity no matter which way the ruling goes because most forums discussed in First Amendment terms are physical places. But the Constitution is one of broad principles, and analogies may be made. To call an online forum the equivalent of an actual forum, which was literally a public square in Roman times, is not so much of a stretch.

The mental acrobatics come in where the First Amendment applies to public forums because that Amendment, of course, does not restrict private limits on speech or assembly. It is not enough that Twitter be some kind of virtual gathering space, which it certainly is; it must be a public gathering space. In terms of the precedents relevant to this case, that means a place that is, in Judge Buchwald’s summation “owned or controlled by the government.”

There is a lot of weight resting on that word “or.” Clearly, Twitter is not owned by the government. There is hardly even a decent argument to say that the @realDonaldTrump account is owned by the government, any more than the President’s clothes, books, or other personal property is. All presidents own things in their individual capacity, and that ownership does not pass to the government for the four or eight years in which they are employed in Washington.


But is it controlled by the government? The three people with access to the account (Trump, Dan Scavino, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders) are all government employees. But not everything a federal government employee touches comes under the control of Uncle Sam. Federal employees drive to work in privately owned cars and live in privately owned houses. Even things they use at work, like the clothes they are wearing, do not pass into the public domain. Some government employees have even been known to keep work e-mails on a privately owned server. And even though Scavino and Sanders use the account as a part of their duties, that is little different from a presidential valet picking out the President’s clothes, or the Secret Service staying at a president or vice president’s private home.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/25/banning-trump-blocking-people-twitter-bad-law-bad-politics/
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Chris has a definition he's made up and happy with so don't try to mess things up.

The ability to block individuals makes it a "limited public forum" and it's not my definition.
A "limited public forum" or "designated public forum" is a place with a more limited history of expressive activity, usually only for certain groups or topics. Examples of a limited public forum would include a university meeting hall or a city-owned theater. The government can limit access to certain types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects. Despite these more proscriptive guidelines, however, a governmental institution may still not restrict expression at a limited forum unless that restriction serves a "compelling interest."
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13012

I write a post on multiple issues and you want to gripe about the definition of a public forum as if the damned judge in this case has no idea and just felt like throwing the terms around in her ruling.
 
Top