Donald Trump Unblocks Some More Twitter Haters

A judge ruled in May that the First Amendment means we all should be able to see government officials' social media accounts.

Omar Marques/ZUMA Press/Newscom

President Trump has unblocked a few more of his haters, in compliance with a May court ruling that deemed his Twitter page a public forum.

In May, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the president and other officials from blocking people on Twitter. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Trump unblocked the seven users who filed the initial lawsuit against him. On Tuesday, he unblocked 20 more people.

Several of the recently unblocked celebrated on Twitter.

Thank you to the Knight Foundation for legally forcing @realDonaldTrump to take out his sticky little phone, scrunch his nose, open Twitter, search my name, shout "Do I seriously have to fucking do this," be told yes by Dan Scavino, take a deep breath, and click "Unblock."

— Bess Kalb (@bessbell) August 29, 2018

I've just been unblocked from @realDonaldTrump…

One year. Three months.

I'm back, baby! https://t.co/Fe4oy6iFut

— Jules Suzdaltsev (@jules_su) August 28, 2018

Hey @realDonaldTrump Thanks for unblocking me. I can now tell you what I think, so shape up!!

— Jon B. "Globalist" Wolfsthal (@JBWolfsthal) August 28, 2018

One user, unblocked by the president, decided that should would now block Trump herself.

Comedian Rosie O'Donnell, who has been the subject of some of the president's harshest attacks, reports that she is still on the block list.

Comments

[damikesc]

The ruling is patently retarded...but conservatives should sue Twitter for preventing their access to Trump when they ban them for no reason.

[Libertymike]

No, the ruling wasn't patently retarded as the judge so meticulously memorialized in her memorandum.

She did not overrule any precedent.

She did not create any new rights; rather, she applied existing first amendment precedent to a new public forum: the Twitter account of POTUS.

Why would you want to support an extension of executive power? Nobody is forcing the congenital liar to use Twitter.

That he is being besieged by MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, WAPO, NYT et al and by the deep state and by the Mueller probe and by the likes of negro nutters such as Maxine Waters and Rev. Al does not matter.

He likes to engage in lawfare. He lost. It is not the first time he got his ass handed to him in the legal arena. Probably won't be the last.

[Hugh Akston]

Why would you want to support an extension of executive power?

I think we all know the answer to this one.

[damikesc]

She did not create any new rights; rather, she applied existing first amendment precedent to a new public forum: the Twitter account of POTUS.

Except the POTUS account blocked nobody. And they have numerous other ways to redress grievances.

Why would you want to support an extension of executive power?

What executive power? An individual, which Trump is, decided he wished to block somebody from accessing his account. They could view all tweets. They could communicate with the POTUS account. They could mail the WH. Email the WH. Call the WH.

I was unaware that I had a right to demand redress of grievances in the manner I want. So, that nobody is here in front of me to write down my complaint means that my rights have been violated, right?

[Hugh Akston]

It would be one thing if Donald Trump used his personal account only to tweet out movie reviews and pictures of his breakfast, but he frequently issues policy positions, personnel announcements, and things that are intended to be taken as orders on his personal account.

[damikesc]

Except nothing on his personal account is official. At all. Literally not one word of it. Not a single government action used a Tweet as the justification for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Quit whimpering.

[Sigivald]

Quit projecting.

[BYODB]

This argument utterly misses the point.

The point is that no one can be banned from Twitter at all, period, full stop. If someone is banned from Twitter, regardless of who does the banning, than they have just de facto banned that person from a 'public forum' and restricted their access to Donald Trump's Twitter feed.

Congrats, it's now illegal for anyone to be banned by Twitter for any reason regardless of their terms of service.

This couldn't be more retarded if they tried. Our court system is officially a joke.

[Mickey Rat]

You are right about the logical implications, but it is not as if the court is actually going to go down that rabbit hole to its bitter end.

[BYODB]

They'll have to if any yahoo off the street decides to challenge it, and make no mistake some yahoo off the street will do exactly that.

[Jgalt1975]

None of these users were banned from Twitter -- they were blocked by Trump's account. Twitter wasn't even a party to the litigation, dipshit.

[Libertymike]

Read the opinion.

His twitter account is not the twitter account of a private person who does not use his account to promote governmental business. Trump uses his Twitter account as a means to communicate public sector business. Thus, no special rules for him.

[Nardz]

Except this is literally a special rule for him

[damikesc]

Except his Twitter account isnt doing business. At all.

[Delius]

This is the kind of comment that could only be made on the Internet -- since in person, everyone, including the author, would be laughing too hard for it to be made.

[Number 2]

"She did not create any new rights; rather, she applied existing first amendment precedent to a new public forum."

How did a Twitter account become a "public forum." It is a virtual space created and owned by Twitter, which grants a license to private individuals to use as they see fit, subject to adherence to the Terms of Service that, so far as I know, do not restrict a user's right to block specific followers. How is someone's Twitter account any more of a "public forum" than a newspaper's "Letters to the Editor" page?

Is it because Trump holds public office? Then what about candidates for office? People who may become candidates? People who have no interest in running for office but speak out on public issues? And why only social media? If you decide to run for public office and film a campaign ad in your living room, is your living room now a "public forum" and are you required to allow your opponent to speak in your living room?

[Hugh Akston]

It seems like there's a pretty clear legal distinction to be made between people who work for the government and people who don't.

[Sigivald]

Nope.

There's a clear legal distinction between "official acts and business" and "everything else".

The President doesn't have to have his Facebook profile open to the world [if he has one].

I'm ambivalent about the arguments that his personal (not the @potus) Twitter is "official enough to count", and equally taht "blocking" is relevant, since all a block really stops is "conversation"*, but the underlying logic is plausible.

* After all, anyone blocked can still SEE the tweets, by logging our or opening another window, etc. They just can't reply/converse directly. Which I don't see as an obvious 1A issue, at a glance, but that's a matter on which reasonable people can disagree.

[Number 2]

So you social media accounts would be public fora if you worked as a clerk in Motor Vehicles?

[damikesc]

Trump also should have ignored the judge and told the judge to go fuck themselves.

[Rufus The Monocled]

This.

[Libertymike]

And give impeachment forces a huge injection of ammunition and momentum.

[damikesc]

Ignoring a judge making an asinine ruling is the executive's prerogative. Equal branches. If the courts make idiotic choices, Congress and the President should ignore them.

Stop acting like the Courts are a superior branch.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whiny, big-talk, beaten right-wingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

[Sigivald]

What kind of libertarian are you?

Any at all?

Namecalling?

Do you have anything but whining about how other people aren't your notional ideal BS?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am a sensible libertarian, part of the great liberal-libertarian alliance that has been generating American progress for more than a half-century, a libertarian who prefers reason, science, tolerance, progress, education, inclusivity, and modernity.

[Libertymike]

Once in awhile, Rev., you get it right. I trust you concur with my ratiocination above in support of the court's ruling?

You see, one does not to have an Ivy pedigree to routinely use words like ratiocination. If I were to wager, I'd put my money on both the chocolate Jesus and the Hildebeast not knowing the meaning of the word.

[Delius]

That's not even remotely how it works, you fucking moron.

[TW]

If by "huge injection of ammunition and momentum" you meant to also add "as they shoot themselves in the foot" then I quite agree.

[Libertymike]

They are already shooting themselves in the direction of their feet, but whether the bullets hit their feet we will not know until November.

If the Dems take the House, coupled with another Trump blunder, it is game on and he will be impeached.

Note, he is not appealing the court's ruling, is he? He has apparently backed down.

[Dillinger]

word.

[Jgalt1975]

That would be fun just to watch SCOTUS, with two of his own appointees on it by that point, pound him through the floor 9-0.

[Juice]

"I can now tell you what I think, so shape up."

Wow. He must be really important!

[BYODB]

President Trump has unblocked a few more of his haters, in compliance with a May court ruling that deemed his Twitter page a public forum.

So, if Twitter bans me because I say mean things on Shapiro's Twitter feed that means Twitter has just banned me from a public forum since I might at some point navigate over to Trump's Twitter page but wouldn't be able to see it.

And thus, Twitter is a defacto government censor.

[Nardz]

^correct

[Libertymike]

No, BYODB is not the POTUS and he is neither a Congressman nor a Senator who has used his Twitter account for government business.

[Jgalt1975]

No, incorrect. These users were not banned by Twitter for violating the ToS. They were blocked by Trump's account. Two extremely different things. Twitter isn't even named as a party to the lawsuit.

[Jgalt1975]

This comment is direct to Nardz, not Libertymike.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

A judge ruled in May that the First Amendment means we all should be able to see government officials' social media accounts.

I thought the ruling ONLY applied to Donald Trump's twitter account.

[Jgalt1975]

How would it only apply to Trump's account? The court's rationale would apply to any government official using Twitter for official communication purposes.

[Fist of Etiquette]

One user, unblocked by the president, decided that should would now block Trump herself.

Jesus.

[Dillinger]

social. justice.

[damikesc]

He should sue her. Just for the lulz.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes! Put Giuliani and the Sekulows on it. Should be fun.

[chipper me timbers]

Since you don't need a Twitter account to view a user's timeline, what's the issue here? I don't get it.

[damikesc]

#Resistance

[AD-RtR/OS!]

Now, if the judges can only block Twitter from blocking, and shadow-banning Twitter users.