
Donald Trump Blocking Accounts on Twitter 'violates US Constitution' - mudil
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-twitter-blocking-accounts-users-violates-us-constitution-columbia-university-knight-a7776486.html
======
dragonwriter
One thing to note here is that this isn't an out-of-the-blue abstract
argument, but applies reasoning in recent cases addressing government
officials use of social media outlets and the First Amendment. Obviously,
Trump is higher profile than any of the officials in previous cases, but this
is a potentially significant, developing area of law in the intersection of
government and technology that reaches more than just Trump's Twitter account.

Original letter (with citations to legal precedent):
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859469-White-
House-...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859469-White-House-
Twitter-Letter-FINAL.html)

Original Knight Institute release: [https://knightcolumbia.org/news/knight-
institute-demands-pre...](https://knightcolumbia.org/news/knight-institute-
demands-president-unblock-critics-twitter)

Additional legal analysis on the issue (written before and independently of
the Knight Institute letter, but updated in light of it):
[http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2017/06/articles/attorney/...](http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2017/06/articles/attorney/free-
speech-and-trump-tweets/)

------
joshribakoff
I don't use twitter can anyone explain this? When the article says he blocked
users, that just means he blocked them from writing on his page? Those people
are still free to create their own tweets on their page, correct?

I don't see how that violates free speech. Using the article's "town hall"
metaphor, if he asked to have someone removed from the town hall meeting
aren't they still free to protest outside on the street corner? If someone is
disturbing a town hall meeting (which is entirely subjective), they can be
removed, which doesn't violate their free speech.

If he goes around & starts forcing Twitter to ban anyone who tweets negative
comments on their own page that is violating free speech. I don't think the
2nd amendment guarantees my right to tag the president in social media posts,
unless I'm not understanding.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't use twitter can anyone explain this?

The _short_ version is that there are a line of existing federal First
Amendment cases which are united by the principle that social media forums
used by government officials in their official capacity are, in that context,
“limited public forums”, and that restrictions (particularly content- or
viewpoint-based ones) on participation instituted by government officials
(including the one controlling the relevant social media account) in that
context are generally in contravention of the First Amendment.

I've linked sources which address both the original letter (which make its own
legal argument with citations to relevant precedent) and a separate analysis
addressing the same general issue (again, with references to relevant legal
precedent) in another comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509298)

------
mudil
The way I see it, the implication of what they are claiming is that Twitter is
a utility.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, they are claiming that the @realDonaldTrump feed, specifically, is a
limited public forum as that term has been established in First Amendment case
law.

This has no bearing on Twitter's ability to control content, or non-
government-officials using Twitter to block users, unlike what would be the
case of this was about Twitter's status rather than a particular government
official's feed's status.

------
nnaumann
bush league psych out shit. laughable man.

