Trump's lawyers: Courts have no say over his Twitter feed

[Psihala]

President Donald Trump can block his critics from following him on Twitter without violating the First Amendment despite a lawsuit's claims that it violates the Constitution to do so, government lawyers say.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/t...-feed-50481158

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Psihala

President Donald Trump can block his critics from following him on Twitter without violating the First Amendment despite a lawsuit's claims that it violates the Constitution to do so, government lawyers say.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/t...-feed-50481158

I suspect the courts aren't going to agree with the Turnip's lawyers.

[GenYus234]

AIUI, their claim is that Twitter is a governmental forum and therefor Trump blocking them from it denies them their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Assuming that Trump's Twitter account is an official government forum, I don't see that it follows that the public must be granted two-way access to it. There are a number of times where the President or other official communicates to the public that are not two-way. And there are multiple ways that citizens can communicate to the President, I don't see how the First Amendment can be construed to require that every possible means of petitioning must be allowed.

[NobleHunter]

Doesn't blocking people on twitter prevent them from seeing your tweets? That being the main difference from muting, which prevents you from seeing their tweets.

So Trump isn't just screen out critics from his feed but also preventing them from reading his tweets.

[Little Pink Pill]

It’s been his personal account for eight years, though. A lot of politicians have them, and I don’t know how I feel about a precedent that prevents elected officials from blocking bullies and trolls from their comments.

[Lainie]

I would support a rule requiring elected officials to create and use an official government twitter account for tweets that meet a specified definition of "official business."

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by NobleHunter

Doesn't blocking people on twitter prevent them from seeing your tweets? That being the main difference from muting, which prevents you from seeing their tweets.

Yes and no. It prevents them from seeing tweets if they are logged into the blocked account. If someone is not logged in, using a third party, or don't have an account they can see public tweets.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Lainie

I would support a rule requiring elected officials to create and use an official government twitter account for tweets that meet a specified definition of "official business."

Which we know would mean nothing as multiple Trump people have been using private email despite the laws in place preventing that.

[Lainie]

I don't expect it to prevent people like Trump from cheating. I don't expect any rule or law to accomplish that. But some people, I believe, will be deterred, and for those who aren't, there could be an enforcement mechanism. Like, if you use your private account for things that meet the definition of official business, it becomes an official account and you lose the privilege of blocking people.

[Little Pink Pill]

How do you enforce that rule, though? Require twitter and other platforms to reveal the management details of any account that has have been ruled official by...whom? A regulatory body?

Politicians can exclude people from venues where they speak and kick out disruptive protesters. They give political speeches to private groups. Is this is different?

[Mouse]

I'd rather just ban Trump from Twitter all together. He clearly can't handle it and given the saber-rattling against North Korea...if we do get nuclear war (and I really don't want it), I don't want it to start as a result of Trump tweeting while on the toilet.