Disaster Trump Can’t Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules - Blocked and Reported!!

Who exactly is Donald Trump blocking on Twitter?

  • People with legit criticism of Him and his policies

    Votes: 27 25.0%
  • People who have been diagnosed with extreme cases of ‘Trump derangement syndrome.’

    Votes: 75 69.4%
  • Reporters who secretly fuck kids on a daily basis

    Votes: 52 48.1%
  • The DEEP STATE

    Votes: 22 20.4%
  • 13 year old Zoomers who spam anime titties at him

    Votes: 34 31.5%
  • Boomers who spam Ben Garrison comics at him

    Votes: 25 23.1%
  • Russian bots / NPCs

    Votes: 21 19.4%
  • Niggers

    Votes: 53 49.1%

  • Total voters
    108

Jmz_33

kiwifarms.net

WASHINGTON — President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era.

Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled unanimously.

The ruling was one of the highest-profile court decisions yet in a growing constellation of cases addressing what the First Amendment means in a time when political expression increasingly takes place online. It is also a time, Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote, when government conduct is subject to a “wide-open, robust debate” that “generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.”

The First Amendment prohibits an official who uses a social media account for government purposes from excluding people from an “otherwise open online dialogue” because they say things that the official finds objectionable, Judge Parker wrote.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” the judge wrote. “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.”

[Read the opinion.]

The Justice Department expressed disappointment in the ruling but said officials had not yet decided whether to appeal to the full appeals court or the Supreme Court.
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision and are exploring possible next steps,” said Kelly Laco, a department spokeswoman. “As we argued, President Trump’s decision to block users from his personal Twitter account does not violate the First Amendment.”
But Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which represented a group of Twitter users who were blocked by Mr. Trump and filed the lawsuit, praised the ruling. He said that public officials’ social-media accounts are among the most significant forums for the public to discuss government policy.

“The ruling will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints and that public officials don’t transform these digital spaces into echo chambers,” Mr. Jaffer said. “It will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy.”

Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has nearly 62 million followers, and he often uses it to make policy pronouncements and communicate with the public, driving the news of the day. Last week, for example, Mr. Trump used Twitter to abruptly announce that the government would still seek to add a question to the 2020 census about people’s citizenship, reversing what administration officials had previously told a court.

His posts routinely generate tens of thousands of replies, as people respond to what he has said and engage in debates with each other.

Against that backdrop, a group of Twitter users whom Mr. Trump had blocked from accessing his postings asked the White House to be unblocked and then, when their request went unheeded, sued the president.

The plaintiffs included Rebecca Buckwalter, a fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. Her account was blocked after she responded to a tweet by Mr. Trump on June 6, 2017, in which he accused various mainstream news media outlets of being “fake news” and said he would not have won the White House if he had relied on them.

Ms. Buckwalter replied, “To be fair you didn’t win the WH: Russia won it for you” — and she was blocked by Mr. Trump’s account.

The lawsuit argued that Mr. Trump’s account amounted to a public forum — a “digital town hall” — so his decision to selectively block people from participating in that forum because he did not like what they said amounted to unconstitutional discrimination based on their viewpoints.

Mr. Trump’s legal team argued, among other things, that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity, and so had the right to block whomever he wanted for any reason — including because users annoyed him by criticizing or mocking him.

But the appeals court disagreed, saying Mr. Trump was clearly acting in a government capacity in his use of Twitter.

“We are not persuaded,” Judge Parker wrote. “We conclude that the evidence of the official nature of the account is overwhelming. We also conclude that 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 ruling upheld a May 2018 decision by a Federal District Court judge that also found Mr. Trump’s practice of blocking his critics from his Twitter account to be unconstitutional. After that ruling, the White House unblocked the specific plaintiffs’ accounts — but not other users who were not involved in the case — while filing an appeal.

Judge Parker was appointed by former President George W. Bush. He was joined in the opinion by Judges Peter Hall, another Bush appointee, and Christopher Droney, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. The district court judge whose earlier ruling the panel affirmed was Naomi Buchwald, a Clinton appointee.

Courts have increasingly been grappling with how to apply the First Amendment, written in the 18th century, to the social-media era. In 2017, for example, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that had made it a crime for registered sex offenders to use websites like Facebook.

In January, a panel on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., issued a similar ruling in a much smaller-scale case, barring the chairwoman of a board of county supervisors from blocking a critic from a Facebook page she administered. The Knight First Amendment Institute also represented that plaintiff.

In a concurring opinion in the earlier case, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said the Supreme Court will eventually need to address many difficult issues raised by officials’ use of social-media services. Among others, she questioned whether such companies’ policies of restricting users deemed to use hate speech from their platforms raised a constitutional problem.

“Cases necessarily will arise requiring courts to consider the nuances of social media and their various roles in hosting public forums established by government officials or entities,” she wrote. “Therefore, in my view, courts must exercise great caution when examining these issues, as we await further guidance from the Supreme Court on the First Amendment’s reach into social media.”
 

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid

This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
First Facebook allows death threats for "threatening" people, now this. It's super gay that social media is making different rules for only specific people that they don't like, if you're not Donald Trump, you can still block whoever you feel like. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Doesn't disabling his ability to block people on Twitter violate his right to free association too?
 

Niggernerd

Fumika reading on a lovely day in the fall
kiwifarms.net
Good. Being one of the most prolific Twitter celebrities posting random stuff, blocking people when your own style of Twitting gets thrown at you. Maybe focus on running the country instead of being on social media all the time.
At least he'd done more while shiposting on twitter than Onigger Hussein parading around like a TV star.

Still it's pretty fucking gay and you people should dub me as emperor of the America's. I don't waste time on social media kiwi farms is fine though because it's heterosexual.
 

The Last Stand

Just enjoying the holiday snow.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It's super gay that social media is making different rules for only specific people that they don't like, if you're not Donald Trump, you can still block whoever you feel like.
I think because Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States, and a public figure no less, he shouldn't be able to block out criticism from his public avenues.

On the other hand, Twitter brings out the worst in people anyway. I'm sure legitimate criticism or praise is buried under screeching virtue signaling, bots, boomers or anybody in between. It's practically No Man's Land in Trump's Twitter feed.
 

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
Supervisor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I wonder how long it's going to take them to figure out that this creates a two-way street and opens up a lot of really neat questions concerning getting blocked and banned on social media. I'm totally okay with this. This could lead somewhere interesting. I mean what's it really going to practically do anyways, make his Twitter comments section worse? I don't even think that's possible.
 

The Last Stand

Just enjoying the holiday snow.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I wonder how long it's going to take them to figure out that this creates a two-way street and opens up a lot of really neat questions concerning getting blocked and banned on social media. I'm totally okay with this. This could lead somewhere interesting.
Does that mean journalists or other SJWs aren't able to block criticism or whoever they don't like? This will be interesting to see a domino effect to this, if any.
 

Buster O'Keefe

Enjoys offal
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Good. Being one of the most prolific Twitter celebrities posting random stuff, blocking people when your own style of Twitting gets thrown at you. Maybe focus on running the country instead of being on social media all the time.
@Y2KKK Baby libtard detected!
Seriously though, that ruling is very USA, in a good way.
 

HeyYou

seriousposter
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
First Facebook allows death threats for "threatening" people, now this. It's super gay that social media is making different rules for only specific people that they don't like, if you're not Donald Trump, you can still block whoever you feel like. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Doesn't disabling his ability to block people on Twitter violate his right to free association too?
He is the president, that's quite a bit different from some random commie with 12 followers. That said, if that's the judge's interpretation of the first amendment, that should mean any public official's twitter account is the matter of public interest, because arguing whether a personal account is or is not in the interest of the public would be an argument that otherwise has to be made constantly, and anyone could make quite a good argument that any personal opinion expressed on a public official's account affects their decisions.

Also, this court case has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point that twitter is a publisher, not a platform, and is absolutely subject to government oversight.
 

HeyYou

seriousposter
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
TBH they should just throw away the block button all together.
I agree, block lists are why twitter is full of dumbasses who are consistently behind on everything because they have half of twitter blocked.

That foot in the door is not good news. Say goodbye to KF in a few years, tops.
Nah, Twitter has gone above and beyond to prove that they are a platform in the last few months. Normal autistic forums haven't done 1/100th of what twitter has done, nor do they have Twitter's popularity.
 
Trump does not 'conduct government business' on his twitter account. You literally can't. He might mention the government business he's conducting, like how a barista might mention the weird flavored coffee drinks they made one day, but that's not the same thing.

Furthermore, it's absurd to have this ruling while also allowing twitter to censor trump's tweets, AND twitter can take away your account, thus removing your first amendment right to the president's twitter.

It's fun to see lefties bullshit themselves into knots on how this makes total sense and isn't at all exceptional, but it'll be more fun to laugh at them when this shit gets used against them. All the fucking TDS people who block at the drop of a hat, not to mention certain congressidiots...

Anyway didn't this happen like a year ago? Or is this just the final appeal?

Also also, what is the penalty for the president saying "Lol fuck you blocked"? What if he says "OK I won't post on twitter ever again then, I'm using some other gay thing now"? I wish he would...
 
That foot in the door is not good news. Say goodbye to KF in a few years, tops.
There is a middle ground between "Giant publisher can censor whoever they want at random" and "No forums allowed!". And frankly, if my options are facebook and twitter ruling the world, or no KF, I like this place but that's an easy choice. But luckily, we won't have to choose between those things.
 

HeyYou

seriousposter
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Trump does not 'conduct government business' on his twitter account. You literally can't. He might mention the government business he's conducting, like how a barista might mention the weird flavored coffee drinks they made one day, but that's not the same thing.

Furthermore, it's absurd to have this ruling while also allowing twitter to censor trump's tweets, AND twitter can take away your account, thus removing your first amendment right to the president's twitter.

It's fun to see lefties bullshit themselves into knots on how this makes total sense and isn't at all exceptional, but it'll be more fun to laugh at them when this shit gets used against them. All the fucking TDS people who block at the drop of a hat, not to mention certain congressidiots...

Anyway didn't this happen like a year ago? Or is this just the final appeal?

Also also, what is the penalty for the president saying "Lol fuck you blocked"? What if he says "OK I won't post on twitter ever again then, I'm using some other gay thing now"? I wish he would...
It's definitely opened the door to several interesting legal questions. "Public interest" is an extremely broad phrase.

This entire thing is autistic because being blocked does not prevent you from viewing his tweets, neither does being banned by twitter, just sign out. It's this dumbass use of the first amendment to claim that people have a right to "engage" with his twitter (from the usual TDS crowd) that caused this mess.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino