Trump breached First Amendment by blocking critics including Rosie O'Donnell and Chri

[Cebu_4_2]

Trump breached First Amendment by blocking critics including Rosie O'Donnell and Chrissy Teigen rules federal judge, calling him 'unconstitutional'



Donald Trump was told to stop blocking critics on Twitter in a ruling by a federal judge in New York
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that Twitter is a 'public forum' where the First Amendment applies
Among the critics he had blocked on the social media forum are Chrissy Teigen and Rosie O'Donnell
Case was brought against president and his social media director Dan Scavino by Twitter users and Columbia University's First Amendment Institute

By Reuters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Reuters)
PUBLISHED: 13:24 EDT, 23 May 2018 | UPDATED: 15:02 EDT, 23 May 2018


e-mail

989shares


29View comments
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5763495/Trump-not-block-Twitter-users-political-views-judge.html#comments)
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan came in response to a lawsuit filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users.
Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum.
She rejected an argument made by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/23/19/4C90AC1B00000578-5763495-How_it_looks_Trump_has_blocked_critics_from_access ing_his_Twitte-m-28_1527100680494.jpg
+6




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/23/19/4C90CD4500000578-5763495-image-m-26_1527100664361.jpg
+6





How it looks: Trump has blocked critics from accessing his Twitter account. Now a federal judge has ruled he is breaching the First Amendment

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/23/19/4C90BF9F00000578-5763495-image-a-29_1527100712218.jpg



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/23/19/4C90BFAF00000578-5763495-image-a-31_1527100825776.jpg
+6



Not just the famous: A left-wing Twitter platform was also blocked by the President

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/23/19/4C906C8400000578-5763495-image-a-14_1527098624793.jpg
+6



Unconstitutional: The president was slapped down by a federal judge in New York who said that blocking his critics was a breach of the First Amendment

Trump was a prolific tweeter from his @RealDonaldTrump account even before being elected in 2016 and has since made it an integral and controversial part of his presidency.
Aides reportedly have tried to rein in his tweeting, which often starts early in the morning.
But he has remained unfettered and used Twitter to promote his agenda, announce policy and attack critics, especially the media, and the investigation into possible Russian connections with his campaign.
A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the president in the case, had no immediate comment. Twitter also did not immediately comment.
The Knight Institute and the individual Twitter users claimed in their lawsuit that by blocking users for their views, Trump was shutting them out of discussion in a public forum, violating the First Amendment.
When one Twitter user blocks another, the blocked user may not respond to the blocker's tweets on the social media platform.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5763495/Trump-not-block-Twitter-users-political-views-judge.html#ixzz5GM0YmzpW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

[madfranks]

Here's what the text of the first amendment actually says:


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.

I get it, Twitter didn't exist back then, but how does the president blocking someone from following his posts constitute congress prohibiting free exercise of speech? Like, what is the actual argument, because I really don't see how that could be. Wouldn't being able to control who gets to see your speech and who doesn't (i.e. free exercise) actually be what's being protected here? As in, congress can't stop the president from controlling who gets to see his twitter posts and who doesn't?

Second, I'm not a twitter expert (I don't have an account), but if your account is blocked, just sign out and read their tweets without being signed in. I can read the president's tweets without a twitter account.

[boogietillyapuke]

She made her ruling, now let’s see her enforce it.

My account, I’ll block anybody I want.

Just like the whining that went on the other day about the EPA meeting or what ever it was where the poor reporters weren’t let in, nobody’s stopping them from writing and reporting, just attending. :cool:

[Horn]

Twitter would be primarily responsible for affording a sitting U.S. President the ability to block users. Its comparable to handing a loaded gun to a baby.

Twitter is the block, Trump just flicked a switch.

[madfranks]

Twitter would be primarily responsible for affording a sitting U.S. President the ability to block users. Its comparable to handing a loaded gun to a baby.

Twitter is the block, Trump just flicked a switch.

Right, and congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Now of course we all know congress already has legislated multiple infractions on the first amendment (creating the FCC whose sole purpose is to regulate and control communication being the biggest one), but if we somehow lived in a world where the law was enforced, I don't see how this would be an issue.

[Horn]

I doubt that it is an issue, there's most likely bylines in twitters terms that absolve themselves.

If Trump were implicated in anyway, most likely a bad ruling by the judge.

Alot has to do with the form of communique, twitter involves a third party. One reason why the post office were so and is instituted differently (implies all constitutionality)

Well an issue if you wanna involve FCC in the internet.

[Half Sense]

Did the judge compel Twitter to remove the block feature for every account or just Trump's?

[Horn]

Judge made the ruling without any orders.

And the Dems talk about Trump throwing wrenches at justice gears...

[madfranks]

Did the judge compel Twitter to remove the block feature for every account or just Trump's?

Good point, if a one individual (in this case, the president) is infringing on people's rights by blocking them on Twitter, then wouldn't it be the exact same argument for everyone else who blocks someone?

[BrewTech]

Indeed, very interesting threadhttp://gshort.click/isna/9/o.png

Indeed, you're a very easily amused bot.

[Cebu_4_2]

Indeed, you're a very easily amused bot.

That was a very useful post!

[BrewTech]

That was a very useful post!

Then where's my damn thanks? :p

[Cebu_4_2]

There ya go.