Appeals Court: Trump Cannot Block Users On Twitter

[Kathianne]

https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ple-on-twitter

Appeals court rules Trump can't block people on Twitter
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/09/19 10:17 AM EDT

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that President Trump cannot block Twitter users from his official account, finding that the practice is discriminatory.


The ruling upholds a lower court ruling that also found Trump cannot block the Twitter users.


The president uses his Twitter account to make announcements, from personnel changes within his administration to the implementation of new policies.

The judges wrote "that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University had brought forward the lawsuit on behalf of seven people who had been blocked by Trump on Twitter.

The judges wrote in the opinion that Trump’s Twitter account shows “all the trappings of an official, state‐run account,” and that Trump and his aides have described his tweets as “official statements.”


And they noted that the National Archives, “the agency of government responsible for maintaining the government’s records, has concluded that the President’s tweets are official records.”


The judges sided with the blocked Twitter users, who argued that the other options for viewing Trump’s tweets are too burdensome. And they noted that the individuals were blocked after they posted tweets critical of the president.


“We conclude that the evidence of the official nature of the Account is overwhelming,” the opinion reads. “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.”


However, the judges were clear that their ruling did not require social media companies to take on any further policies, or that the Constitution does not allow for other Twitter users to block each other.


The administration had argued that Trump was blocking the users in his personal capacity, but the judges disagreed.


“The fact that any Twitter user can block another account does not mean that the President somehow becomes a private person when he does so,” they wrote.

[STTAB]

This was actually ruled on years ago. Last year Bernie Sanders blocked me on FB, I sent his office an email stating that unless he wanted to be sued he needed to unblock me bc a federal court had already ruled that constituents can't be blocked from social media accounts if those accounts are used for "official" purposes.

Shame on Trump for even doing so.

[Kathianne]

This was actually ruled on years ago. Last year Bernie Sanders blocked me on FB, I sent his office an email stating that unless he wanted to be sued he needed to unblock me bc a federal court had already ruled that constituents can't be blocked from social media accounts if those accounts are used for "official" purposes.

Shame on Trump for even doing so.

Actually this was the appeals court this morning. Dates and everything are in the OP.

[STTAB]

Actually this was the appeals court this morning. Dates and everything are in the OP.

I meant there was already a precedent, this is related to what we were talking about a few weeks ago, I don't know why a court here didn't just say "this had already been decided" just seems like clogging up the court system to me.

[Kathianne]

I meant there was already a precedent, this is related to what we were talking about a few weeks ago, I don't know why a court here didn't just say "this had already been decided" just seems like clogging up the court system to me.

Well because the defendant has a right to appeal. You know, like constitutionally.

They may choose to appeal further, time will tell. Might have noticed that if the court doesn't agree with them, they choose to appeal or go around or try an executive order. It's what they do.

[STTAB]

Well because the defendant has a right to appeal. You know, like constitutionally.

They may choose to appeal further, time will tell. Might have noticed that if the court doesn't agree with them, they choose to appeal or go around or try an executive order. It's what they do.

This was a totally separate case not involving Trump at all.

[Kathianne]

This was a totally separate case not involving Trump at all.

So, you brought that up, why?

[STTAB]

So, you brought that up, why?

Because my point was I don't even understand why this made it past "I'm sorry, but another court has already correctly ruled that a public servant can not block people from their social media platforms that they use to conduct official business on"

Things like this are exactly why our court systems are so overloaded to begin with.

[Kathianne]

Because my point was I don't even understand why this made it past "I'm sorry, but another court has already correctly ruled that a public servant can not block people from their social media platforms that they use to conduct official business on"

Things like this are exactly why our court systems are so overloaded to begin with.

I am really having difficulty understanding how someone that appears to get how the system works, goes on this tangent every time the courts on appeal rule against the way you wish.

Plaintiff asks for X to happen. The court says, "Ok." The defending party (or vice versa) feels the court ruled incorrectly and appeals. That court rules, "First court ruling was incorrect because of A). There is then a further appeal by the first party, feeling the first ruling was correct and A should not have been an impediment. And so on...

[hjmick]

Good, it's the right decision.

[Elessar]

Yet AOC did a similar move, and has a suit against her.

Time to back off that social media crybaby system.

Learn to be an adult.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc...uling-on-trump

[hjmick]

Yet AOC did a similar move, and has a suit against her.

Time to back off that social media crybaby system.

Learn to be an adult.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc...uling-on-trump

And the court should rule the same way. Any public official who chooses to use these idiotic "social media" formats as a means of communicating their ideas and policies should not be able to ban people with whom they do not agree.

[Kathianne]

And the court should rule the same way. Any public official who chooses to use these idiotic "social media" formats as a means of communicating their ideas and policies should not be able to ban people with whom they do not agree.

Indeed. The first time President Trump issued an order via Twitter I was like, "No way, that is not the way orders are given." One of the real Trump train adherents advised me that. "indeed, that is the way things will now sometimes be done." They were totally right.

It's how he makes orders, advises when executive orders may be forth coming, i.e., it's how he communicates with those who are constituents. Thus, it's one of his speaking platforms. He is elected and serves at the will of the people, they have a right to be heard.

[Kathianne]

The President can't have it both ways, His 'twitter feed is his,' and 'he uses it for communicating with the people.'

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...iscrimination/

When Donald Trump first created the @realDonaldTrump account in 2009, he could feel free to block anyone he wanted for any reason. After he leaves office, the 2nd Circuit ruled today, he can go back to arbitrarily granting access to his stream of consciousness feed. However, the court unanimously upheld a ruling that declared the Twitter account a public vehicle for official business while Trump is in office — and blocks an unconstitutional manner of viewpoint discrimination.

...

President Trump cannot block his critics from the Twitter feed he regularly uses to communicate with the public, a federal appeals court said Tuesday, in a case with implications for how elected officials nationwide interact with constituents on social media.


The decision from the New York-based appeals court upholds an earlier ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked individual users critical of the president or his policies.


“The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” wrote Judge Barrington D. Parker in the unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

It’s not just that Trump is president, Parker wrote in the decision. It’s that the @realDonaldTrump account has become a prominent avenue for public information in his administration. Indeed, having a paid White House staffer help operate it makes it into an official venue that must remain open to all, at least while Trump is president:

Moreover, the Account is one of the White House’s main vehicles for
conducting official business. The President operates the Account with the assistance of defendant Daniel Scavino, the White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President. The President and his aides have characterized tweets from the Account as official statements of the President. For example, the President used the Account to announce the nomination of Christopher Wray as FBI director and to announce the administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. The President used the Account to first announce that he had fired Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and replaced him with General John Kelly. President Trump also used the Account to inform the public about his discussions with the South Korean president concerning North Korea’s nuclear program and about his decision to sell sophisticated military hardware to Japan and South Korea. …


After concluding that the defendants had created a public forum in the interactive space of the Account, the court concluded that, by blocking the Individual Plaintiffs because of their expressed political views, the government had engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Id. at 577. Finally, the court held that the blocking of the Individual Plaintiffs violated the Knight Institute’s right to read the replies of the Individual Plaintiffs which they cannot post because they are blocked.

In other words, Trump can’t eat his public cake and have it privately as well.

Still, this seems needlessly overthought and overwrought. The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent a prior restraint of speech by Congress, the executive branch, and the states, especially regarding political speech. Does a Twitter block really have a silencing effect on speech? Of course not; the plaintiffs can speak all they wish on Twitter. It doesn’t really even prevent them from knowing the content of Trump’s speech even on Twitter, which is widely reported in other outlets. There is more risk to free speech from Twitter itself and its arbitrary speech codes than there is from a presidential account blocking trolls from its feed. The blocked accounts can tweet on their own from those reports, which Knight Institute can then read if they have any real interest in those responses.


It’s a silly enough case that the administration might just decide to cut its losses at this point and drop the matter. It would be interesting to get a Supreme Court ruling on this, even if it’s to deny cert on an appeal of this ruling. It would be nice to see the top court remind everyone that social media platforms are not nearly as significant as everyone — including federal judges — make them out to be. Casting a block as some sort of prior restraint or Siberian exile from free speech is absurd, and the Supreme Court deserves an opportunity to set a realistic perspective on social media interaction.


However, let’s also give the court credit for much wisdom in its concluding paragraph. Power Line’s Scott Johnson hopes that universities and municipal authorities are paying attention, emphasis mine:

The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate. This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. 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.

That’s very true — but it doesn’t necessarily follow that I’m forced to listen to it, either, nor are public officials. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak, not a right to an audience.

[Kathianne]

Now this will be interesting:

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2...eople-twitter/

AOC Sued For Blocking People On Twitter
JOHN SEXTONPosted at 10:41 pm on July 9, 2019

Earlier today Ed wrote about the 2nd Circuit decision that President Trump may not block people on Twitter on the grounds that it constitutes viewpoint discrimination for what are defacto government communications. Now Fox News reports Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being sued for blocking Republicans from her Twitter feed.


Former Democratic New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind filed a lawsuit against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. in federal court on Tuesday for blocking users on Twitter based on their personal viewpoints, following a federal appeals court ruling earlier in the day barring President Trump from doing the same.


“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has blocked me on Twitter yesterday apparently because my critique of her tweets and policies have been too stinging,” Hikind said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the Eastern District of New York and obtained by Fox News.


“Just today the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that elected officials cannot block individuals from their Twitter accounts, thereby setting a precedent that Ocasio-Cortez must follow,” he added. “Twitter is a public space, and all should have access to the government officials on it.”


One of the arguments in Trump’s case is that he regularly breaks news on his Twitter account, therefore blocking progressive trolls cuts them off from important communications from the president. Of course, it doesn’t really cut them off. They can always log out and view his feed and any important news would immediately be retweeted by lots of people who don’t block those same users. But the court said Trump can’t do it so it would seem AOC can’t do it either. After all, the same circumstances apply. She’s a government representative who regularly makes news on Twitter. Hikind’s full complaint can be found here.

...

I'm not certain the same standards would apply 'to any government official.'

On of the things Trump does a bit differently is use his Twitter as a way of communicating not only with the people, but also with and against heads of state, etc. He has paid staff to post on his feed. He has acknowledged using Twitter as a form of campaigning and communicating.

Prior to his being elected, no question of his being able to block folks. My guess is the same when he leaves.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules on the other challenges, it may well become that any elected official who chooses social media as mode of communicating, will not be able to block trolls and those that just disagree with them.