President Trump broke US Constitution with Twitter bans – judge Donald Trump has broken the United States Constitution, a New York district court ruled Wednesday, putting the US president in legal hot water. So what was it? His constant interference in the Russia investigation that is looking into collusion with foreign powers? Nope. The money he continues to take from foreign governments …
He won't. And that is just another of the increments by which the US turns from a liberal democracy into an authoritarian state. I don't know when history will decide that the moment of transition was, but either in the recent past or the near future, I guess. Assuming he does something about Mueller, that will probably be the moment people agree on.
So, using this precedent media companies are going to be legally required to give air time for everybody that shouts at their TV or barges onto a stage uninvited from the audience, and newspapers will be required to publish every letter?Yes! On top of that, allowing same-sex marriage will cause people to marry their dogs, legalizing cannabis will increase heroin overdoses, and deporting undocumented immigrants after a conviction will collapse the labor market.
*Here's the </sarc> tag for those that need it.
“Can't they just logout of Twitter to view them? If so it doesn't really stop anyone viewing them.
It’s not just about viewing the conversation, it’s about being able to take part in the debate.
You cannot post your opinion if you are logged out, blocking accounts therefore controls (censors) the discussion, potentially limiting comment only to those who support the politician.
What do you mean now? The Secret Service has been investigating all known threats to the President (and presidential candidates, and former Presidents) since its inception. Instead of wasting your energy on righteous indignation, perhaps spend the calories on educating yourself? I almost never recommend Wiki for anything (for what should be obvious reasons), but in this case it's a good place to start your research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
Similarly, if EPA holds a press conference and kicks out reporters of a specific political option out of it, they are also violating the Constitution. Hope someone tells them.
I'm not sure about that; the issue here seems to be that Trump's tweets and their replies count as a public forum because of the policy nature of their content, and that banning users from seeing his tweets while logged in limits their ability to take part in that public forum. So the breach isn't the not talking to them, it's the limiting of their opportunity to reply. It's the prohibition on their speech that's problematic, not their hearing.
I might be misunderstanding of course.
@ThomT I think we are both right. The reason why anybody would be blocked/kicked out is NOT to prevent them from hearing the information (because it becomes public knowledge anyway), but to prevent them from asking inconvenient questions (expressing opposing views etc) publicly in the context where the announcements were made. I think this is where the violation lies.
Not just Presidents! The judge made it clear in her opinion that it was unconstitutional. That means it applies to ALL government officials, including representatives, senators, the state governors, city mayors, etc., and of course to herself and fellow judges as well. I wonder if she considered that a judge will now have to allow the people they rule against to inundate their own Twitter feeds.
...how many lawyers will find this verdict "appealing"?
The answer is...
...it depends on how much money can be spent arguing over what should be common sense.
If any public figure does not separate their private lives and actions from the public then they forfeit the right to act as a private individual. An open democracy is they only way to avoid the tyranny that drove Thomas Jefferson's pen on so many occasions. A lot of money that could be used to fight true injustice must now be spent to take this case to the Supreme Court. All because one man in a powerful position can't tell the difference between "It is right" and "I want it to be right."
@chuckufarley
"An open democracy is they only way to avoid the tyranny that drove Thomas Jefferson's pen on so many occasions. "
Indeed, had that Champion of Freedom! been given the right to appeal to The People and poll his ideas, he might well have gathered enough support for his pet law of castrating gays and adulterers.
Alas. though, the American Revolution did not include manhood suffrage, nor yet womanhood suffrage, let alone blackhood suffrage, so he died too early.
And even with all of his imperfections and contradictions the best ideas that he put down on paper are still shaping our world today. Thanks to the combination of ideas from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Congress Committee on Style we have:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Singularly either one is bigger than any one person and their flaws. Taken together we have a vehicle of government that gives us all a chance live in a better world than our parents and grandparents. That is if we can stop taking so many steps back on the road to a more perfect union.
Yes, Jefferson was fully a man of his times. Just as we all are. We cannot escape our biases but we can try to overcome them and hopefully inspire others to overcome their own. Just like we kept the best ideas of Thomas Jefferson's and Gouverneur Morris's generation we have, in the spirit of those very same ideas, been working to rid ourselves of their worst ideas. And hopefully our own bad ideas as well.
In closing, I would ask that next time you wish to imply how our aspirations to fulfill to the worthy ideals of our society are in vain because the authors of the ideas were all too human, don't.
"All because one man in a powerful position can't tell the difference"
more like: All because ONE CAREFULLY SHOPPED-FOR JUDGE and a handful of money-grubbing l[aw]yers want to INJECT CHAOS into the system through FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AND FRIVOLOUS 'DAMAGE' CLAIMS, as usual. These sewers suers are the REAL problem...
I have a big problem with this judges ruling and its consistency with the rest of US law. There is a big difference between silencing a person's views, and mandating that a specific forum be maintained to host those views. The first amendment says that they government may not pass a law preventing someone from speaking their mind about a political subject, but it does not say that every possible method be made available to them. They may not be able to post on Trump's own feed just as they can't spraypaint their message on the side of the White House - but they can certainly post on their OWN twitter feed. They can write a letter, start a petition, do ANY NUMBER of things. Their right to speak their opinion has not been blocked.
This is one of the reasons that I dislike mixing "social media" and "government". Social Media is conducted within the terms of service of a private sector organization. A private sector company has to be able to say what is, and what is not, allowed on their servers -- especially now that the law has changed so that they can be criminally liable for user posts even if they don't know about them. If Trump or some member of city council posts something on twitter, does that now mean that Twitter has to host it indefinitely and allow other people to comment on it?
If a politician posts something on their own website, such as a letter of comment from a constituent, does that mean that they have to allow ALL people to be able to comment on it and be forced to publish those views/letters as well? If not, how is that any different than posting something on Twitter or Facebook?
People who get rowdy, obnoxious, or rude get kicked out of public meetings all of the time, and repeat offenders get banned. How is that any different than getting blocked on Facebook or Twitter? Or is this judge saying that it isn't different, and that people can't be banned from speaking at public meetings or removed from the podium when their allotted time runs out?
As much as I hate Trump's obnoxiousness, especially on twitter, I don't agree with this judge and expect this to get flipped on appeal. As long as people can read his drivil, and the government doesn't forbid them from posting their own drivel well thought out opinions, I don't see the first amendment as written being violated.
I'm on the fence but I can understand the logic behind the conclusion.
The First Amendment speaks in absolute terms of making no incursions upon freedom of speech, and this case applies the usual sensible modification of that re: public forums. Any restriction is an incursion — that they could speak elsewhere (or elsewhere on Twitter) isn't a defence. The most controversial part of that to me seems to be in finding Trump's feed to be a relevant 'public forum'.
The court isn't compelling Trump to create a public forum, it merely found that he had already created one through use of his account for policy discussion. Having created one, his ability to exclude people is then subject to the law.
The difference between this and those kicked out of public meetings for being rowdy, obnoxious or rude is that the court was considering those excluded based on the content of their opinions, not their behaviour.
The difference between this and those kicked out of public meetings for being rowdy, obnoxious or rude is that the court was considering those excluded based on the content of their opinions, not their behaviour.
Now that I've started reading the case document, I'm even more convinced the judge has erred. The judge jumps from blocking (which defendants do not dispute) to making an unsubstantiated assumption as to the reason they were blocked. Each of the blocked plaintiffs admit that they took actions over and above voicing their personal opinions, and those actions are just as likely if not MORE likely lead to their being blocked. As such, even his own finding of fact supports that it was behaviour and not just content of opinion.
Additionally, the convoluted reasoning and justifications used to establish an "injury" to the Knight Institute is laughable. Blaming Trump because Knight wants to read the opinions of someone else that they don't themselves follow. If Knight wanted to read the person's posting then they should follow them, not demand that someone else do it for them.
I also disagree with the reasoning saying that Twitter is a public forum. If his reasoning stands, then an official's own own email account could be considered a public forum as well, and if it is a public forum then Twitter is now obligated to publish everything even if it violates their terms of service.
You know all of those Russian accounts that Twitter dropped? Well, those fake accounts had someone's political opinions and as a public forum it would be illegal to drop them and their messages.
No, this finding is going to get at least partially reversed on appeal. If not, the unintended consequences / collateral damage will be quite significant.
(And no, don't take this as support of Trump - they should not have blocked the accounts and they should be unblocked - but the reasoning the judge used doesn't cut it)
I also disagree with the reasoning saying that Twitter is a public forum. If his reasoning stands, then an official's own own email account could be considered a public forum as well, and if it is a public forum then Twitter is now obligated to publish everything even if it violates their terms of service.
What nonsense! An Email account is for exchanging messages between a small amount of people.
Trump uses his Tweeter account to speak to the people - to as many people as possible - he would actually like if he had 7 billion followers. The problem comes from him blocking users based on them saying things he disagrees with. If he had a read-only account, where nobody could respond to his tweets, then that too would be OK.
And Twitter is still NOT required to publish content that violates its terms of service.
"They may not be able to post on Trump's own feed"
It's not Trump's feed. It belongs to Twitter. Never, ever, forget that you do NOT own anything that you post to so-called "social media". It belongs to the company running the servers.
What the judge has pointed out (and rightly so, IMO) is that even us ordinary plebs have a right to heckle a speaker in a public place. A Twitter feed is (in essence) a publicly available soapbox, and anybody should be allowed to comment from that same soapbox, NOT be relegated to the soapbox across town where nobody is listening to that particular conversation.
"It's not Trump's feed. It belongs to Twitter. Never, ever, forget that you do NOT own anything that you post to so-called "social media". It belongs to the company running the servers."
Well, if its not his feed, and it belongs to Twitter, Trump shouldn't have been named in the lawsuit. And, further, it is Twitter who should've been sued. So, the judge erred on that count, and the appeal will fully dismiss the findings of the first hearing.
So, now we've established Trump is innocent, and the court simply found him guilty through corruption, the judge involved and the prosecutors should be sacked immediately, right?
You make some excellent points.
The comparison with the operation of the White House internal Postal System is particularly appropriate.
There are multiple levels of filtering that occur before any mail gets to the Oval Office. Since the White House receives and estimated 10,000 pieces of mail a day. Compare that to the potential for a Twitter account, or any other social media account, to be flooded to the point of uselessness by spammers and bots by the judicial insistence that nothing can be blocked.
This is an old judge, with a limited grasp of how the digital world functions or how it can be abused. This decision will be appealed. Hopefully more technically educated heads will make a ruling at the appellate level.
"Social Media is conducted within the terms of service of a private sector organization."
The crux of the matter...
And, so far, that private sector organization actively filters and excludes what that private sector organization deems to be "offensive", "terrorist", "undesirable", etc., without oversight of any representative authority, and without divulging the rules or algorithms used, only its opinion. That is, it is NOT a public forum, regardless of who, or how many, participate on it. Being that's the case, I don't think this ruling will stand
Indeed, as a non-American, I just see this as a CNN type of tactic to have a dig at him... "because I don't like him" instead of it actually being some valid thing.
They can read his posts, and can comment on the official POTUS account, so what's the deal? If he just copy/pastes stuff from @POTUS to his personal feed, it's just representing his personal views.
That he blocks them from replying on his personal feed, and is now under fire legally for doing so, tells me that the courts want to effectively tell us that blocking anyone from replying to anything posted by anyone, is now illegal.
"As much as I hate Trump's obnoxiousness, especially on twitter, I don't agree with this judge and expect this to get flipped on appeal."
I expect this not to be overturned. This is simply for the fact that the FA is pretty broad in what it proscribes: basically any governmental interference in speech. There are practical limitations, such as time running out in a debate, but these do not occur on Twitter. What happened here is that the President deliberately stifled the ability of people to communicate on Twitter because of their political opinions. Being rowdy in a public meeting can get you kicked out, but that's not suppression of your speech due to politics.
The FA is specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The President is abridging the freedom of speech of these people. You don't need to suppress it entirely to be at fault under the FA, just to even try is wrong.
"I have a big problem with this judges ruling and its consistency with the rest of US law"
well, that's why the US has judges and other legal experts to decide the matter based on years of study.
If you don't like it, vote for someone to change it.
Simply buy a judge who agrees with you. [buy as in pay for their election].
Let's be honest, due to the system, the voters have very little power - at best "Choice A or Choice B", and in some elections, it's "Choice A" only
They have been trying so hard and spent so much time trying. Hopefully those people will finally feel rewarded having something they can actually legally pin on Trump. Those tears on the day he was elected can now be wiped away and a feeling of doing good can wash over them.
Will it balls.
The plaintiffs are seven people who were blocked and the Knight First Amendment Institute, which as the name suggests has the sole purpose of defending the First Amendment. The court's verdict was solely on the grounds of the Constitution and its case law.
Are you suggesting that the Constitution shouldn't apply to people who preferred the loser in an election? Or maybe that what the Constitution means or doesn't mean should be whatever the current government decides?
You're extremely naive if you've bought into the version of the world where everything that happens is entirely framed by partisan politics. The cause of the collision is: Trump is using social media in a completely unprecedented way, and the Constitution says a lot about freedom of speech. This has happened now because this is really the first time it could have happened.
@ ThomH
"The court's verdict was solely on the grounds of the Constitution and its case law"
Thats good. I am glad Trump is being dealt with for factual and legal issues. I am glad he won, not because I think he is much good (he beat out my favourite candidate) but because the Democrats were dangerous in dictating their winner.
I am sick of hearing he will be impeached for x/y/z and how he is guilty because some crying mob decides they dont like his hair/skin colour/language. There is plenty good reason to complain about Trump but it gets lost in a sea of snowflakes and tantrums. Comedy shows becoming almost worshippers of shouting at the audience how bad trump is. Its boring.
So hopefully those who deem it necessary to act like that can take this actual event and just learn to be happy, or at least less angry.
"Trump is using social media in a completely unprecedented way, and the Constitution says a lot about freedom of speech. This has happened now because this is really the first time it could have happened."
That is a very good and spot on way of putting it. He did something untested by law, the law works out the situation and from now on it can be applied. Dont take anything I have said as against your comment, you get an upvote from me. Your comment is spot on.
Let's not overreact. All that happened here is that a judge found that the president did something wrong. Doesn't that happen, multiple times, to every president?
All that needs to happen is that he goes from "blocking" to "ignoring" them and promises not to do it again. And if he doesn't want to do that, he can appeal the judgment (allowing him to pose as a martyr to the Deep State for a bit longer, because ye gods this is a trivial matter), and failing appeal, ignore it completely, because seriously - can you see anyone voting for impeachment over this issue?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
