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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

so in this case, blocking your account from Trump will not block you from seeing what he tweets, it will only take away your ability to respond to him, and I'd guess the blocking was due to nasty comments. How is that doing anything at all to your rights? Please explain.

The 1st Amendment doesn't gaurantee your right to see anything. If Trump does an interview on FOX News, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to see that interview.

The 1st Amendment gives you the right to speak to anything. Trump blocking speech he doesn't like is equal to government censorship, according to the judge, because Trump's Twitter feed is NOT private, it's a goverment run public platform. The government is forbidden from censoring free speech in such a platform.

It's pretty simple, but you can read the judges 75 page explanation of his ruling if you're still confused.

knightcolumbia.org...

I don't see how the government can dictate the use of a Twitter feature/policy...but...

Basically, the moment he became a government official, his personal twitter account which he created a long time before he became president, at that very same moment, became a "government run public platform"?

Ok, so a government run PUBLIC platform can logically be subject to that which pertains to PRIVATE corporate policy, profits, etc...?

Twitter execs make decisions based on what will make a profit for the investors. Trumps, and everyone else's Twitter is subject to these profit making decisions.

When we see a trump tweet, we know that it must conform to what Twitter will allow, as far as everything from character count allowed, content allowed, etc... so it is not an "official gov comminucation to the citizens" because corporations are totally allowed to censor and they are the ones in control of the platform.

So just by the very fact, that freedom of speech does not exist on a Corporate Run Private Platform... it just seems strange.

Its a "government run public platform" that is 100% completely under the control of a "corporate run private platform".

This would have to apply to EVERY government official then. Forever, and on Every "verified" platform not just Twitter either.
Nobody in gov can block anyone, no matter how annoying they are, no matter how much they spam your tweets with garbage, no matter how many lies they keep telling over and over.

I didn't read the 75 pages like you so I admit that I do not have a firm and thorough understanding of the matter.

But from what I do know, I am confident in saying that: This is not a simple, cut and dry matter that should be obvious to everyone. This is going to be one of those issues that have a decent supporting argument on both sides, and that one will just be a bit more right than the other.


I'm genuinely curious if you can agree with that assessment, or are you of the opinion that it IS a cut and dry matter and that those who can't see the obvious truth are just willfully blind/ignorant?

I'm honestly trying to learn more about this.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Basically, the moment he became a government official, his personal twitter account which he created a long time before he became president, at that very same moment, became a "government run public platform"?

That was Trump's choice to continue to use his personal Twitter account for presidential business. He could have kept his Twitter posting to his official POTUS Twitter account, but he didn't. And, when challenged he, his DOJ and White House Counsel confirmed to the courts that his personal Twitter account was official presidential communications. He used it to fire James Comey, to "Hereby Declare" the DOJ look into the investigation against him and to call of the North Korean Summit.

Twitter execs make decisions based on what will make a profit for the investors. Trumps, and everyone else's Twitter is subject to these profit making decisions.

Twitter can set standards and block those who violate those standards as well as block fake accounts and spam bots, as they find them. The President cannot block speech he doesn't like from his feed on top of that, since that would be the same as the government censoring speech, because he himself has claimed, and now the courts have ruled that his Twiiter feed is a public platform.

Ok, so a government run PUBLIC platform can logically be subject to that which pertains to PRIVATE corporate policy, profits, etc...?

If the government uses a public facility to host a government event, it's still a government event, and not private one. If Trump chooses to use Twitter to address the American people, he still has to represent and protect the constitution while doing so. He can't get around the people's constitutional rights because he's standing on provate property. He doesn't stop being president. He is still "The Government" and his action must not be constitutionally forbiddin.

Nobody in gov can block anyone, no matter how annoying they are, no matter how much they spam your tweets with garbage, no matter how many lies they keep telling over and over.

I agree that Twitter is not the best format for the President to use if he wants to control the narrative.

So just by the very fact, that freedom of speech does not exist on a Corporate Run Private Platform... it just seems strange.

Corporations are not the government. The 1st Amendment protects the people against government censorship, not corporate censorship. When Trump communicates on Twitter he does so as POTUS, not as a private corporation.

This would have to apply to EVERY government official then. Forever, and on Every "verified" platform not just Twitter either.

Only if that government official is using their Twitter account for official business. If they're using it to campaign, for example, that's different.

But from what I do know, I am confident in saying that: This is not a simple, cut and dry matter that should be obvious to everyone.

It is that cut and dry. The President can't side step the constitution, while executing official presidential communications, by claiming he's on "private property".

originally posted by: Kharron
Side note: I never thought I'd have to defend the Constitution on this website.

It’s ok, You’re not. You’re defending a judge’s decision, nothing more.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is that cut and dry. The President can't side step the constitution, while executing official presidential communications, by claiming he's on "private property".

Twitter is a private company.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kharron
Side note: I never thought I'd have to defend the Constitution on this website.

It’s ok, You’re not. You’re defending a judge’s decision, nothing more.

Do me a favor, please -- update us on this if it changes, it's an interesting topic. As I said, I think the decision is very strong and built on a strong foundation, I don't see any grounds for appeal but anything is possible.

Keep us updated in a new thread if that changes, por favor.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is that cut and dry. The President can't side step the constitution, while executing official presidential communications, by claiming he's on "private property".

Twitter is a private company.

Let's not forget when some of the MSM shills were barking @Jack on twitter to ban Trump?

The smell of Marxist Cannibalism is making me hungry!

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kharron
Side note: I never thought I'd have to defend the Constitution on this website.

It’s ok, You’re not. You’re defending a judge’s decision, nothing more.

Do me a favor, please -- update us on this if it changes, it's an interesting topic. As I said, I think the decision is very strong and built on a strong foundation, I don't see any grounds for appeal but anything is possible.

Keep us updated in a new thread if that changes, por favor.

I promise to do so.

I’m not a fan of the American legal system, and I care less about what some lawyer or judge thinks, and the sophistry it takes to get to their conclusions. But I am willing to admit it is unlikely to go in Trump’s favour.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is that cut and dry. The President can't side step the constitution, while executing official presidential communications, by claiming he's on "private property".

Twitter is a private company.

POTUS IS the government. Location has nothing to do with that.

When the government rents space from, oh let's say Trump Tower, it doesn't stop being the government and become part of the Trump Organization. A government office operating in Trump Tower is still subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the government, even if the door lettering and office window curtains have to comply with Trump Tower guidelines.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is that cut and dry. The President can't side step the constitution, while executing official presidential communications, by claiming he's on "private property".

Twitter is a private company.

POTUS IS the government. Location has nothing to do with that.

When the government rents space from, oh let's say Trump Tower, it doesn't stop being the government and become part of the Trump Organization. A government office operating in Trump Tower is still subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the government, even if the door lettering and office window curtains have to comply with Trump Tower guidelines.

The POTUS has first amendment rights as well, and may ignore people whenever the hell he wants. A federal judge has seized Trump’s personal Twitter account as government property because some people were upset the could no longer troll the president.

Interesting questions remain:

Given Twitter’s stance on hate speech, and given that hate speech is protected under the first amendment, are they now unable to ban users for hate speech so long as it happens in this new “designated public forum”?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The POTUS has first amendment rights as well

No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment protects against government censorship. POTUS is forbidden from censoring free speech. PERIOD

Donald Trump the private citizen has a 1st Amendment right to exercise his own free speech.

and may ignore people whenever the hell he wants.

Nobody is forcing Donald Trump or POTUS to read and/or answer anyone's Twitter responses to his Twitter feed.

A federal judge has seized Trump’s personal Twitter account as government property because some people were upset the could no longer troll the president.

No. Donald Trump's own administration set the precedent for this ruling by telling a previous court, in a previous case, that the @realdonaldtrump tweets were official presidential communications.

You can't have both ways.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's an easy question. The users agreed to their T&C so they will ban users for hate speech.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's an easy question. The users agreed to their T&C so they will ban users for hate speech.

But hate speech is protected speech, and Trump’s twitter feed is no longer twitter, but a public forum like a park.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's an easy question. The users agreed to their T&C so they will ban users for hate speech.

But hate speech is protected speech, and Trump’s twitter feed is no longer twitter, but a public forum like a park.

The difference is Trump is not doing the banning on hate speech, Twitter does as per the agreement.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The POTUS has first amendment rights as well

No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment protects against government censorship. POTUS is forbidden from censoring free speech. PERIOD

Donald Trump the private citizen has a 1st Amendment right to exercise his own free speech.

and may ignore people whenever the hell he wants.

Nobody is forcing Donald Trump or POTUS to read and/or answer anyone's Twitter responses to his Twitter feed.

A federal judge has seized Trump’s personal Twitter account as government property because some people were upset the could no longer troll the president.

No. Donald Trump's own administration set the precedent for this ruling by telling a previous court, in a previous case, that the @realdonaldtrump tweets were official presidential communications.

You can't have both ways.

Donald Trump can do whatever he wants on his account, on Twitter’s platform, and that includes blocking trolls on Twitter, which is a function provided to every user.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's an easy question. The users agreed to their T&C so they will ban users for hate speech.

But hate speech is protected speech, and Trump’s twitter feed is no longer twitter, but a public forum like a park.

The difference is Trump is not doing the banning on hate speech, Twitter does as per the agreement.

It is a designated public forum, which is public property.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

From your OP:

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.

This is about Trump as a POTUS blocking free speech. If Twitter changes their T&C regarding hate speech, Trump still can't block hate speech.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

From your OP:

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.

This is about Trump as a POTUS blocking free speech. If Twitter changes their T&C regarding hate speech, Trump still can't block hate speech.

Trumps feed has been designated by a judge a “public forum”. A public forum is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well then I suppose their T&C doesn't apply to hate speech. Now I think about it, it's a good question.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well then I suppose their T&C doesn't apply to hate speech. Now I think about it, it's a good question.

Yes, I feel like it could become messy. Now federal courts and government will have to involve themselves in Twitter’s affairs.