1st Amendment issue: Can Trump block Twitter users?

C_Felix

Master Poster
C_Felix
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
2,953
Location
Just outside Raleigh, NC
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/11/tec...-lawsuit/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool

The suit argues that Twitter is a public forum under the First Amendment, and because the president's Twitter (@realDonaldTrump) is used for official government announcements, the tweets should be accessible to everyone. The suit asks the president to unblock the users.
Click to expand...

and

n a decision last month, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said that "cyberspace," specifically social media, is the most important platform for exchanging views, citing Twitter as a place for petitioning elected officials.
Click to expand...


And when you consider any Mr. Trump tweets is an official statement...
 
I don't know a lot about how Twitter works. Are these users blocked from reading the tweets, or are they blocked from re tweeting them?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
I don't think you can block people from reading your tweets... but you can block them from talking to you, which might be a problem if Trump's twitter account is an official government outlet.
 
Argumemnon said:
I don't think you can block people from reading your tweets... but you can block them from talking to you, which might be a problem if Trump's twitter account is an official government outlet.
Click to expand...

It does block the user from reading your tweets but that's easy to get around since his profile is public.
 
If someone blocks you on twitter:

You can't subscribe to their feed - so their tweets no longer appear in your timeline.
If you are logged in, you can't see their tweets, you have to log out to read them. (as long as their profile is public)
You can't send them messages.
You can (try to) send tweets to them, but they won't see them unless they go looking.

As far as they are concerned, you don't exist.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yes. Making sure _you_ can't see something is your business. Blocking others from seeing you is pretty stupid and self-centered.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand. People make private blogs and feeds all the time. Even the ISF hides some subforums from non-members.

I've been looking more at how Twitter works, and I think that blocking a person's view of tweets is a result of how Twitter is designed. If you want to prevent a troll from interacting with your tweets by re-tweeting them, the system also blocks that person from seeing the tweets in the first place. But whatevs. I already don't care anymore.
 
theprestige said:
I still don't understand. People make private blogs and feeds all the time. Even the ISF hides some subforums from non-members.

I've been looking more at how Twitter works, and I think that blocking a person's view of tweets is a result of how Twitter is designed. If you want to prevent a troll from interacting with your tweets by re-tweeting them, the system also blocks that person from seeing the tweets in the first place. But whatevs. I already don't care anymore.
Click to expand...

45's Twitter feed has been made out to be official government communications - essentially, 45's saying that you cannot receive official government communications, despite the fact that you as a member of the public are entitled to such things.
 
Argumemnon said:
Twitter isn't a private club.
Click to expand...

In general, yes it is. It is not a public utility.

Each person has the ability and right to control who sees their tweets.

Trump, however, is an exception since he has said that his twitter feed is an official means of communication which means it falls under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Spindrift said:
In general, yes it is. It is not a public utility.

Each person has the ability and right to control who sees their tweets.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they didn't have the right. I just find it ridiculous and childish that you not only want to avoid certain people, but you want to force them to avoid you. It's like a digital restraining order. Like ABC blocking me from viewing their content because I sent them an angry letter once.
 
Argumemnon said:
I didn't say they didn't have the right. I just find it ridiculous and childish that you not only want to avoid certain people, but you want to force them to avoid you. It's like a digital restraining order. Like ABC blocking me from viewing their content because I sent them an angry letter once.
Click to expand...

Why is Twitter different than any other social media in that respect? We choose who we want to talk to and who we want listening to us.
 
Spindrift said:
Why is Twitter different than any other social media in that respect?
Click to expand...

Did I say it was?

We choose who we want to talk to and who we want listening to us.
Click to expand...

You're broadcasting your thoughts for the world to see. Again, my opinion is that it's petty to prevent specific people from being able to read them just because you don't want to hear about them.
 
Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978) neither the First nor the Fourteenth amendments “mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government's control”

Hell you don't even have to log out, just open a new private window.

Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Did I say it was?
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that twitter works differently.

Argumemnon said:
You're broadcasting your thoughts for the world to see. Again, my opinion is that it's petty to prevent specific people from being able to read them just because you don't want to hear about them.
Click to expand...
No, you're broadcasting to people you want to see it. It may be the world or just a subset. For a private person, I don't see the problem with them limiting their audience or responses.
 
The Big Dog said:
Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978) neither the First nor the Fourteenth amendments “mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government's control”

Hell you don't even have to log out, just open a new private window.

Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous.
Click to expand...

What ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houchins_v._KQED,_Inc.

Justice Burger held "the media have no special right of access to the Alameda County Jail different from or greater than that accorded the public generally." He based decision on previous precedent that the First Amendment did not compel either private or public entities from disclosing information to the press. He also declined to expand the First Amendment's on policy grounds. "Whether the government should open penal institutions in the manner sought by respondents is a question of policy which a legislative body might appropriately resolve one way or the other." Information about jail conditions was still available through other channels, "albeit not as conveniently as [KQED] might prefer."

Internet lawyering FTW. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
The Big Dog said:
Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978) neither the First nor the Fourteenth amendments “mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government's control”

Hell you don't even have to log out, just open a new private window.

Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous.
Click to expand...

in a decision last month, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said that "cyberspace," specifically social media, is the most important platform for exchanging views, citing Twitter as a place for petitioning elected officials.
 
The Big Dog said:
Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978) neither the First nor the Fourteenth amendments “mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government's control”

Hell you don't even have to log out, just open a new private window.

Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous.
Click to expand...

That lawsuit was about physical access to a jail.
 
As long as the tweets are visible to everyone, the fact that some people might have to take an extra step to read them doesn't seem to merit legal intervention. Similarly, the inability to reply doesn't seem actionable since Twitter remains a private business that can take away that ability at their discretion by disabling people's accounts; so, if replying was considered a right of any US citizen, there would have to be constraints not only on how the occupant of the Oval Office can manage its account but also on how Twitter itself handles user accounts.
 
Spindrift said:
That lawsuit was about physical access to a jail.
Click to expand...

Yes, and... your point? Do you think that the principles set forth in that opinion are limited to the facts?

they are not.

Jumpy jiminy, that US Supreme Court case has been cited 266 plus times for the proposition that "Neither the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government's control."

The U.S. Supreme Court "never intimated a First Amendment guarantee of a right of access to all sources of information within government control." Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 9 (1978). The First Amendment does not mandate "unfettered access" to government information. Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 182 (3rd Cir.1999), citing Houchins, id.

The First Amendment does not require states to accommodate every potential method of recording its proceedings, particularly where the public is granted alternative means of compiling a comprehensive record.

Whiteland, 193 F.3d at 183; see Combined Communications Corp. v. Finesilver, 672 F.2d 818, 821 (10th Cir.1982).
Click to expand...

MAPLE HEIGHTS NEWS v. Lansky, No. 1: 15CV53 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2017).
 
C_Felix said:
in a decision last month, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said that "cyberspace," specifically social media, is the most important platform for exchanging views, citing Twitter as a place for petitioning elected officials.
Click to expand...

First, Justice Kennedy is an idiot.

Second, nobody is stopping you from tweeting your petitions to elected officials. Blocking you from reading the president's feed is doesn't block you from petitioning the president via your feed.
 
From Google search, "can you block people from seeing tweets":
Not really. You can set your account to private and not let the person follow you and you can block a user so you don't have to see their replies in your feed. But the public nature of Twitter means you can't really block a single user from seeing your tweets or a single tweet.
Click to expand...
I agree with Babbylonian, there is no need for legal intervention here on the grounds of viewing the Tweets.

Not sure what to make of the free speech aspect of the fact some people can reply and some can't but I imagine since citizens can petition Trump via other avenues that also is a non-issue. Surely the POTUS could delete profane and abusive replies on his account.

Addressing this via a lawsuit seems like a waste of resources.
 
theprestige said:
First, Justice Kennedy is an idiot.

Second, nobody is stopping you from tweeting your petitions to elected officials. Blocking you from reading the president's feed is doesn't block you from petitioning the president via your feed.
Click to expand...
If you mail your petition to your rep, the USPS has to deliver it. He cannot tell the USPS not to deliver mail from theprestige
He or his agents may discard them unopened, but they must be delivered.
For a public servant, who's tweets and social media are official statements, Twitter, instagram, and all other social media must work the same way

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
rwguinn said:
If you mail your petition to your rep, the USPS has to deliver it. He cannot tell the USPS not to deliver mail from theprestige
He or his agents may discard them unopened, but they must be delivered.
For a public servant, who's tweets and social media are official statements, Twitter, instagram, and all other social media must work the same way
Click to expand...

Must?

Not all mediums of communication are the same. The president takes to TV all the time. If I record a petition, must it be carried by some TV station or network, so that the president may decide whether to tune in?

The president gives press conferences. If I schedule a press conference, must the press corps show up and cover it, and publish it in their respective organs, so that the president may decide whether to read about it?

The president delivers speeches in the Rose Garden. If I prepare a speech, must the White House make the Rose Garden available to me to deliver it, so that the president may decide whether to sit in the audience and take notes?

But all of this silliness is based on the childish canard that an official tweet must carry the same weight as an official executive order, or some such convenient and wilful misunderstanding.
 
I can send many many letters to the President, as much as I'd like. But there is nothing to compel him to actually read them or respond to them. He can instruct his staff to stop giving him my letters. He can choose to toss them in the trash. ETA: This is effectively what blocking on twitter does. You can still tweet to your hearts content but he doesn't have to listen.

The first amendment guarantees that I can say whatever I want in public without the government stopping me. It does not guarantee that anyone, even the government, is actually going to listen to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom