The Absurdities of Judge Buchwald's Ruling on Trump's Twitter Account

a reply to: pheonix358

You keep using the word disruptive...

Offering a differing opinion is not disruptive.

Calling someone out for bs is not disruptive.

But it is to small people who have fragile egos.

originally posted by: hoss53

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: hoss53

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”

Source

Based on the considerations above, the Southern District of New York Court has ruled that President Donald Trump cannot block a person from his Twitter account.

But the court in question has tortured the language, and contorted reality, in order to justify the ruling. Thus the legalese, the facts, and the precedents in the ruling—as boring as it all is—is an attempt to give solidity to pure wind.

The allegation as to whether the President is blocking “a person from his Twitter account” is false. The President is blocking a Twitter account, sure, but a person and his Twitter account are not the same things, which is a fact that not even the defendants address. It pains me to state the obvious, but a person is a flesh and blood human being; a Twitter account is not. But the court no less uses “person”, “individual”, “user” and “account” interchangeably, sometimes in the very same sentence.

“When a user is signed in to a Twitter account that has been blocked, the blocked user cannot see or reply to the blocking user’s tweets, view the blocking user’s list of followers or followed accounts, or use the Twitter platform to search for the blocking user’s tweets.”

The stupidity is nearly endless. If hitherto we are to argue that a Twitter account has the same inalienable rights as human beings, that would also mean Twitter bots, on account of them being Twitter accounts, have the exact same rights.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs—the flesh and blood human beings—have had no rights infringed. They are, like their Twitter-less countrymen, still free to view and respond in any fashion they so choose. It’s as easy as signing out of their old accounts (if they haven’t fully merged with each other by now). All one needs to do to engage with Trump is to create a new account like the rest of us. A chilling thought for some, perhaps, but in fact, some of the plaintiffs have done just that. So much for being blocked.

The judge, in a fit of absurdity, designated President Trump’s twitter feed to be a “public forum”, like a public park, street corner or free speech area. Therefore, the president blocking a Twitter account amounts to barring citizens from a public forum. So with a click of a mouse you can step out of Twitter (a private company) and right into a state-owned, state-ran town hall in the form of Trump's twitter feed. I suppose the government will now be footing part of the Twitter bill. This designation is one part fantasy, one part malicious nonsense, for the exact same reasons mentioned above. But at least, according to the judge's ruling, Trump's engagement in this new public forum makes him the most engaging, transparent, and receptive president who ever existed.

I’m no expert in the constitution or a lawyer, and I disagree with “blocking” on philosophical grounds, but we shouldn’t have to torture the language, the constitution, and reality, in order to appease some twitter addicts, whom are unable to differentiate between themselves and their Twitter accounts.

Let's hope her opinion is appealed.

LesMis

You do realize that the p.o.t.u.s. is a public official. He works for us. "The American people" .

Yes I realize that. And he donates his paltry salary back to you.

I'm sure you have seen his tax returns to confirm this. You are so gullible. Or stupid.

The cheques have already been handed over deposited. I accept your denials for what it is.

Take no salary

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."

while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,”

While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

The ruling looks solid to me.link

If Trump makes an Oval Office address, it doesn’t mean the Oval Office immediately becomes a public forum.

That's right the Oval office address is not a public forum its ability is one way with no public interaction, but his Twitter account is and he has used it in that way.

The @realDonaldTrump account is an “interactive space” available to the public and is a two-way platform where people can interact and therefore subject to “public forum” doctrines.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


The Kentucky court ruled that the Governor's Facebook and Twitter accounts were private. But in this case the DOJ and White House counsel has already said that Trump's tweets, like when he declares stuff and fires people on Twitter, are serious and legitimate presidential business. Those official communication are entered into the National Archives.

November 14, 2017
The Department of Justice on Monday told a federal district court judge In Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.”

www.abajournal.com...


The Trump administration did this to themselves.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."

while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,”

While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

The ruling looks solid to me.link

If Trump makes an Oval Office address, it doesn’t mean the Oval Office immediately becomes a public forum.

That's right the Oval office address is not a public forum its ability is one way with no public interaction, but his Twitter account is and he has used it in that way.

The @realDonaldTrump account is an “interactive space” available to the public and is a two-way platform where people can interact and therefore subject to “public forum” doctrines.

As I said, the judge has to construe reality itself to make that designation.It is not a public forum. It has and always been his personal account. Official statements are sent through the typical channels.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


The Kentucky court ruled that the Governor's Facebook and Twitter accounts were private. But in this case the DOJ and White House counsel has already said that Trump's tweets, like when he declares stuff and fires people on Twitter, are serious and legitimate presidential business. Those official communications and are entered into the National Archives.

November 14, 2017
The Department of Justice on Monday told a federal district court judge In Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.”

www.abajournal.com...


The Trump administration did this to themselves.

Perhaps they did. But as I’ve tried to argue, it is absurd.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those people are still free to make those comments. Your definition the Presidential debates violated our 1st Amendment rights as some people were chosen to speak/ask a question while the entire public could not. Your view (and this Judge's) would mean no public official who expresses any political views on their twitter can't block anyone. I don't think this issue is quite so simple.

This isn't "my view" It's the view of Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center who filing a lawsuit behalf of leading First Amendment scholars in support of the Knight First Amendment Institute’s lawsuit against the President for engaging in impermissible viewpoint discrimination by selectively blocking critics from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed....and The judges view.

Your view (and this Judge's) would mean no public official who expresses any political views on their twitter can't block anyone. I don't think this issue is quite so simple.

Yep. Politicians who follow in Trump's social media footsteps should take note.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Perhaps they did. But as I’ve tried to argue, it is absurd.

It wasn't absurd to the DOJ, the White House or Donald Trump at the time, even though a lot of Americans thought Trump's use of Twitter was unpresidential.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."

while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,”

While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

The ruling looks solid to me.link

If Trump makes an Oval Office address, it doesn’t mean the Oval Office immediately becomes a public forum.

That's right the Oval office address is not a public forum its ability is one way with no public interaction, but his Twitter account is and he has used it in that way.

The @realDonaldTrump account is an “interactive space” available to the public and is a two-way platform where people can interact and therefore subject to “public forum” doctrines.

As I said, the judge has to construe reality itself to make that designation.It is not a public forum. It has and always been his personal account. Official statements are sent through the typical channels.

He has made official statements repeatedly through twitter and interacted through twitter to both governments and the public and based on prior cases and precedent is subject to public forum doctrines. As the judge explained in the 75 page decision which says the Trump administration cannot continue to violate the first amendment by blocking dissenting views.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Perhaps they did. But as I’ve tried to argue, it is absurd.

It wasn't absurd to the DOJ, the White House or Donald Trump at the time, even though a lot of Americans thought Trump's use of Twitter was unpresidential.

Trump has explicitly stated the reasons for using Twitter, none of which involves official state government statements.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

The ruling largely builds on past cases, where courts have ruled that public forums are more than just physical locations.

"We went beyond sidewalks a long time ago," says David Greene, a senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's not new at all to apply the public forum doctrine beyond real property."

while @realdonaldtrump may have started out as the personal account of a private citizen on a private platform, it’s since morphed into a communication channel controlled by the President and Scavino, who use it to promote new policies, announce official decisions, and engage with foreign political leaders, among other things. It is, in other words, an interactive space under government control, and is therefore subject to the laws concerning public forums.

“He’s acting like the president on it. It’s not a personal account anymore,” Citron says.

Judge Buchwald's decision explains how the case hinges on two crucial questions: Whether a public official can block people on Twitter in response to their political views without violating their First Amendment rights, and whether it matters when the person doing the blocking is the President.

“The answer to both questions is no,” Buchwald wrote. “No government official—including the President—is above the law,”

While ordinary Twitter users can block and follow other Twitter users they do or don’t agree with, the judge found that @realdonaldtrump is essentially a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot curb speech based on people’s viewpoints.

The ruling looks solid to me.link

If Trump makes an Oval Office address, it doesn’t mean the Oval Office immediately becomes a public forum.

That's right the Oval office address is not a public forum its ability is one way with no public interaction, but his Twitter account is and he has used it in that way.

The @realDonaldTrump account is an “interactive space” available to the public and is a two-way platform where people can interact and therefore subject to “public forum” doctrines.

As I said, the judge has to construe reality itself to make that designation.It is not a public forum. It has and always been his personal account. Official statements are sent through the typical channels.

He has made official statements repeatedly through twitter and interacted through twitter to both governments and the public and based on prior cases and precedent is subject to public forum doctrines. As the judge explained in the 75 page decision which says the Trump administration cannot continue to violate the first amendment by blocking dissenting views.

Call them what you will, but they will always be tweets.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

However, if the President chooses to use his private account to share news and make statements that affect every single American, then it needs to be available to be read by every single American -- simple as that.

It is available to every single American—simple as that.

Except those that are blocked? Which by definition is not everyone.

Is it required for a President to have an official Social Media account - no
Is it required , if so, to let every person view it ? -no
Is it required for everyone to "follow" the President ? -no
Is it required for the President to "follow" all US citizens ? no

Of course , if one is not a US citizen they will not understand.
What we had in this case was another "Left Coast Wannabe Judge" trying to enforce the hate Trump propaganda

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't use Twitter so correct me if I'm wrong but I have no account and can see tweets still. So since I have seen his tweets without an account no one is prevented from seeing his tweets, they just can't post him back ... Last I checked you can't engage a TV address either.

When i scroll through i can see a few...then they want me to register

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't use Twitter so correct me if I'm wrong but I have no account and can see tweets still. So since I have seen his tweets without an account no one is prevented from seeing his tweets, they just can't post him back ... Last I checked you can't engage a TV address either.

When i scroll through i can see a few...then they want me to register

Just click "Not Now" and keep on scrollin....

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Perhaps they did. But as I’ve tried to argue, it is absurd.

It wasn't absurd to the DOJ, the White House or Donald Trump at the time, even though a lot of Americans thought Trump's use of Twitter was unpresidential.

Trump has explicitly stated the reasons for using Twitter, none of which involves official state government statements.

Do have a link to that proclamation?

originally posted by: Kharron
The President has every option to choose his way of communication with the People. He can go through a spokesperson, he can release a statement that is distributed to everyone, equally; he can televise it, go on the radio -- whatever, it's his prerogative -- as long as every... single... American has access to it if they wish to have it.

I don't even have a Twitter account and I can see what Trump has tweeted.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I kind of agree with you. Trumps tweets and account are viewable to anyone with a google search, you don’t even have to sign up for twitter. So they are available for everyone at any time. Regardless if he blocked someone or not, they’re still available for everyone.

But I also believe if the president wants to use social media to announce policy and official business he should have to deal with everything that comes along with that. Including people like me.

originally posted by: toysforadults
if I were the president I would continue to block whoever I felt like it and let them try to do something

Yep. Pull an Andrew Jackson.

originally posted by: Justso
I don't use twitter or have an account.

originally posted by: Justso
This judge is so out of touch with the way modern communication works that it's almost funny. I'm sure he doesn't have a twitter account or understand the nuances and how it is used.

Ummmmmm. Did you mean to type that? Cause... that is actually funny.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: pheonix358

You keep using the word disruptive...

Offering a differing opinion is not disruptive.

Calling someone out for bs is not disruptive.

But it is to small people who have fragile egos.

And you and all of these people can respond and have all the free speech (as allowed by Twitter) on your own twitter account. You cannot disrupt other peoples accounts.

If I am speaking ... you do not have the right to come up and yell in my face. I would take that as an attack and defend myself.

P