Twitter users sue Donald Trump for blocking them over critical comments

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Oh, but he can respond. He can email the president or write him a letter and send it snail mail. Nobody is blocking his right to respond. He's just all twisted up because he using email or snail mail doesn't raise his self-esteem levels if only the person to whom the message is addressed can read it. He still has every right to respond. He just has no right at all via the Constitution to be heard.
Despite what some on this board may believe---the right to be heard isn't there.

a reply to: diggindirt

Not only that but the most obvious fact is that a person is not his twitter account. It is the account, and not the person, that is blocked, and no amount of pretending will prove otherwise.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Xeven
Blocking on social media is a form of speech. President is allowed free speech too. Might as well sue him for ignoring snail mail lol.

However, you can't block someone from government information.

There IS a President Trump twitter account. Trump doesn't use it. He uses his personal account to make policy statements and he has said that it's his official account. Therefore, his personal account has turned into a government account.

You can't hold a town hall meeting and say it's only open to people who donate $40,000 to your campaign or only for Hispanic people who agree with you.

So yes, his personal account is now archived... including the stuff he's deleted (or tried to.) And yes, since government accounts can NOT block anyone, he can't block them. He absolutely could back when he was Mr. Trump or Candidate Trump. But now he's said it's an official account and therefore blocking is against the rules.

Actually He can block legally. Its similiar to having your press pass revoked when he blocks someone who is behaving in a way he does not like. Presidential privilidge will cover this and nothing will come of it.

originally posted by: Liquesence
Hence the second part of my initial response: does he being POTUS nullify the fact that he's on a private forum in regards to speech?

That's what the Supreme Court needs to answer.

Here's another issue stemming from this, lets turn it away from Trump. The Constitution applies between citizens and the government, what's most applicable here is the 1st and 4th amendments. Does corporate property which the citizen is using qualify for those protections? To answer this, the court is probably going to have to make an analogy to non electronic sources of information. Are the contents of your emails (again, a personal but corporate owned account) like the contents of a lockbox that you would like to keep secret but are willing to show specific people in specific circumstances. Or are they more like the guest book at a hotel, where a third party is holding the information and chooses who can see it and add to it. Legally these two concepts are treated different, and these are questions that need answered for social media and more broadly all digital communications.

a reply to: Aazadan
Of course the Authoritarians want more laws. They can't help themselves. They whine that the laws don't apply any more, boohooo, booohooo, because well, this is a "new" means of communication. So they want things tilted to the Authoritarian side, more control, special rules for special people. Do you realize how nutty this sounds?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Aazadan

Of course the Authoritarians want more laws. They can't help themselves. They whine that the laws don't apply any more, boohooo, booohooo, because well, this is a "new" means of communication. So they want things tilted to the Authoritarian side, more control, special rules for special people. Do you realize how nutty this sounds?

It's not a recent issue, the topic of electronic conversations has come up since the very first telegraph wires 150 years ago. The Supreme Court has gone back and forth on the issue several times.