Appeals Court: Trump Cannot Block Users On Twitter

[STTAB]

Now this will be interesting:

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



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.

And this further proves my point. This was ruled on and ran through it's appeal over a year ago. Public officials can NOT block people on their social media accounts if they use them for "official" business at all, The Trump case and now this case shoudn't even be heard. Find the assholes in contempt and move on if they won't unblock people in accordance with the ruling that already exists, there is no reason for each politician to have to be sued "well maybe THIS person can block" no , no elected official can, done and done.

[Kathianne]

And this further proves my point. This was ruled on and ran through it's appeal over a year ago. Public officials can NOT block people on their social media accounts if they use them for "official" business at all, The Trump case and now this case shoudn't even be heard. Find the assholes in contempt and move on if they won't unblock people in accordance with the ruling that already exists, there is no reason for each politician to have to be sued "well maybe THIS person can block" no , no elected official can, done and done.

Thus, once a ruling has been made-that should be it? That's it, no appeals?

[STTAB]

Thus, once a ruling has been made-that should be it? That's it, no appeals?

The first case was appealed all the way up until the SCOTUS refused to certify it.

[Kathianne]

Thus, once a ruling has been made-that should be it? That's it, no appeals?

I personally see Trump's feed differently than others. 1. he has paid staff to maintain it. 2. He has issued changes to policies and actual policy itself, not using the press corp or announcements in person.

We all learned of his 'challenge' to the recent SCOTUS decision via Twitter. He has used it to threaten, cajole, insult, and praise foreign leaders and decisions.

AOC on the other hand, well there's nothing on her feed that one doesn't hear whenever she's by a mic or placing a vote.

[Kathianne]

The first case was appealed all the way up until the SCOTUS refused to certify it.

They obviously have found new ways to appeal it.

SCOTUS has ruled more than once that abortion is legal. They have also refused certiorari on more than one case. So, in your thinking, 'No more appeals?'

[STTAB]

They obviously have found new ways to appeal it.

SCOTUS has ruled more than once that abortion is legal. They have also refused certiorari on more than one case. So, in your thinking, 'No more appeals?'

No, I'm simply saying lower courts need to do a better job of tossing out cases that are either bullshit to begin with or substantively no different than cases that have already been decided, SCOTUS is actually pretty good at that, it's the circuit courts that need to do a better job.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm simply saying lower courts need to do a better job of tossing out cases that are either bullshit to begin with or substantively no different than cases that have already been decided, SCOTUS is actually pretty good at that, it's the circuit courts that need to do a better job.

How do you think the cases make it up to SCOTUS? Oh yeah, on appeals. Any court can make mistakes. Some things are bad laws. Sometimes it takes more than 2 or even 3 hearings before it starts looking more and more like something really went wrong. Sometimes not. That is why there is cert to the supremes and why it's the end of the road for some.

[Russ]

I personally totally disagree with the ruling. Twitter users that want to badmouth Trump have the freedom of speech to do so - to their friends or family or to their own Twitter followers. I don't see why they should get to use Trump Twitter feed to address all of his followers, just to trash him.
By the same reasoning, Facebook should not have the right to ban anyone, and CNN's website should be forced to allow conservatives to post whatever they want on CNN's website.

[Kathianne]

I personally totally disagree with the ruling. Twitter users that want to badmouth Trump have the freedom of speech to do so - to their friends or family or to their own Twitter followers. I don't see why they should get to use Trump Twitter feed to address all of his followers, just to trash him.
By the same reasoning, Facebook should not have the right to ban anyone, and CNN's website should be forced to allow conservatives to post whatever they want on CNN's website.

As President, the people have a right to hear and respond via the channels the President chooses. If he makes announcements via tv, without taking questions-that's what he does. If he releases a press release, no one can stop him from doing that. If he chooses to have a surrogate make those announcements or to do them as leaks or trial balloons? Again, no recourse.

President Trump is not forced to partake of Twitter. If he chose to use it only as a campaign too, to communicate with his supporters? I don't think the ruling would be what it was.

He has chosen though, with his 'shake it up' style to use twitter for announcements, threats, to denigrate those he disagrees with, to praise those he likes. To encourage his supporters to do positive things or not. He's used it to humiliate cabinet members and to bait the press. He has announced policy and the threat to undo some. In other words, he chose a vehicle which goes beyond letters to the editor or calls to a tv station or letters to their Congressional representatives. No one forced him to tie the office and this form of media.

Like those at the border, they can leave those quarters and go home. So too can President Trump leave Twitter. What he cannot do is tell half the country they cannot participate on his self chosen format.

[STTAB]

How do you think the cases make it up to SCOTUS? Oh yeah, on appeals. Any court can make mistakes. Some things are bad laws. Sometimes it takes more than 2 or even 3 hearings before it starts looking more and more like something really went wrong. Sometimes not. That is why there is cert to the supremes and why it's the end of the road for some.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

If one case is already decided all the way to it' conclusion "no , elected officials can not ban people from social media outlets that they use for official business" then that doesn't mean "okay maybe that doesn't apply to THIS person" it applies to ALL elected leaders and all citizens, and anyone who is sued because they blocked someone from that point on in ANY jurisdiction should be told "previous ruling applies, case dismissed"

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

If one case is already decided all the way to it' conclusion "no , elected officials can not ban people from social media outlets that they use for official business" then that doesn't mean "okay maybe that doesn't apply to THIS person" it applies to ALL elected leaders and all citizens, and anyone who is sued because they blocked someone from that point on in ANY jurisdiction should be told "previous ruling applies, case dismissed"

We'll see.

[STTAB]

We'll see.

It's not that way, and it never will be that way, but it should be that way.

Just another in a long line of things that our government just completely wastes time and money doing things completely against common sense.