Trump Can Block People On Twitter If He Wants, Administration Says (arstechnica.com) 214
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The administration of President Donald Trump is scoffing at a lawsuit by Twitter users who claim in a federal lawsuit that their constitutional rights are being violated because the president has blocked them from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle. "It would send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters to hold that a president's choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter -- a privately run website that, as a central feature of its social-media platform, enables all users to block particular individuals from viewing posts -- violate the Constitution." That's part of what Michael Baer, a Justice Department attorney, wrote to the New York federal judge overseeing the lawsuit Friday. In addition, the Justice Department said the courts are powerless to tell Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle, which has 35.8 million followers.
"To the extent that the President's management of his Twitter account constitutes state action, it is unquestionably action that lies within his discretion as Chief Executive; it is therefore outside the scope of judicial enforcement," Baer wrote. (PDF) Baer added that an order telling Trump how to manage his Twitter feed "would raise profound separation-of-powers concerns by intruding directly into the president's chosen means of communicating to millions of Americans."
"To the extent that the President's management of his Twitter account constitutes state action, it is unquestionably action that lies within his discretion as Chief Executive; it is therefore outside the scope of judicial enforcement," Baer wrote. (PDF) Baer added that an order telling Trump how to manage his Twitter feed "would raise profound separation-of-powers concerns by intruding directly into the president's chosen means of communicating to millions of Americans."
Yup. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
How's this flamebait? Nazis were nationalist-socialists.
The one who modded this needs to take up some history books and learn some basic knowledge that still highly influences our world today.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, except that as soon as the SA wanted to implement the 'socialist' part of national socialism, they were murdered by the army and the SS in the 'night of the Long Knives' because no one really wanted socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
How's this flamebait? Nazis were nationalist-socialists.
The one who modded this needs to take up some history books and learn some basic knowledge that still highly influences our world today.
How was this not modded flamebait. The Nazi's were far-right. Don't let the name fool you, unless you believe that the Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is a functioning democracy.
The closest thing that the Nazi's ever did to a social program was Action T4, which was where the Nazi's euthanized anyone who was a burden to the state. Anyone who modded that up needs to read a lot about history. The emphasis in "national socialist" was "national" as in nationalism, because that's what the Nazi's were, extrem
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis were nationalist-socialists.
Given their policy, no they weren't.
Opposed to labor unions, women's rights, social welfare and command use of economic resources
All in favor of PROFITS, CAPITAL CENTRALIZATION and SLAVE LABOR they were about as socialist as Yemen and other Free-market dreamtowns
Nazism is to Socialism as People's Republic is to a Republic.
Using the word doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, folks should sue Twitter for allowing Trump to continue with his racist and hateful posts.
Which tweets are those?
Re: (Score:2)
People publishing specific nuclear weapons designs SHOULD be sanctioned, there are far too many who have the will and the tech to build a bomb.
Such persons need no further help
That said,Trump chose to enter a public forum, he has a legal duty under Amendment 1 to allow all the public in!
And then reality..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Justice Department is powerless to tell the courts what they can, can't, or must, do.
A big part of presenting a position to a court is telling them what they can or can't do. They (and then the appellate courts) have to decide if you're right. You'd be amazed at what portion of legal matters in court involve decisions made by judges where they might rather do something else that might make more sense in a particular case, but they have limited power. In reality, while there are many judges from both sides of the aisle whom we may disagree with from time to time, this restraint is why the notion of the "activist judge" is basically a myth, especially at the federal level.
The courts defer to the executive or Congress on a wide variety of matters. Still, blocking a person prevents them from viewing your tweet and thus from interacting with it, which certainly limits that person's ability to comment on that tweet in a forum with thirty million plus people. It stretches credulity that you could convince a judge that a forum of thirty million people is anything other than a fully public forum, and free speech protections are at their zenith when talking about political matters in a public forum.
The blocked person may have ample alternative avenues for communication, but preventing them from commenting on the basis of their speech is still a content-based restraint on speech and IIRC is presumptively unconstitutional. Still, First Amendment doctrine is a bit labyrinthine and it would take a full briefing to lay out and evaluate the issue fully.
Re: (Score:3)
But, as my point goes... the justice department can say whatever it wants, and the courts will give consideration to it i'm sure, BUT... the courts are
Re: (Score:1)
The First Amendment has never required providing a platform. The blocked users can still tweet all they want about anything or anyone.
Re:Not exactly. (Score:4)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Or, for this purpose....
Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech..... or the right of the people ( ) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If Trump's twitter is personal, than it's not an official forum, BUT, the White House has stated repeatedly that it IS an official forum. So yes, this is in the courts purview, and it isn't black and white. Cutting people off from an official forum seems to be a violation of the first amendment twice over, regardless of what the DoJ happens to opinion about it. Deleting tweets after the fact also may run afoul of preserving official records.
Re: (Score:1)
Shit. Arrest Obama for not letting Joe Shmoe off the street into the white house press briefing.
In reality nothing has been taken away from these people.
They are not banned from twitter.
They can tweet all they want. Trump doesn't have to trolls harassing him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Free Speech does not mean that each speaker must talk to every other person. The content of the tweets are still publicly available.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It stretches credulity that you could convince a judge that a forum of thirty million people is anything other than a fully public forum, and free speech protections are at their zenith when talking about political matters in a public forum.
Exactly; and on top of this, he is a public person, by his own choice. As the president, he is a civil servant, and anything he says in public will be taken to represent the official line of the nation as a whole, even if it doesn't come through @POTUS or whatever it is called. He is no longer just "this guy, Donald Trump", with his personal opinions that he shares with a group of peers and nobody else. As the president, he is supposed to be the top civil servant (note the word "servant") for ALL citizens o
Re: Not exactly. (Score:2)
Go to your next town hall and start yelling obscenities. Let me know how that works.
Re: And then reality..... (Score:4, Insightful)
>Ruth Bader Ginsburg us going to fuck Trump over, wait and see.
That's right. Let some else do it!
Or you could take responsibility (assuming you are American). It doesn't matter how you voted - your society and your system put Trump into the presidency. That requires a lot of tedious grass roots politics to address. And not the "kill those filthy Republicans" kind of adversarial actions that ultimately make things worse.
You need better education. You need to crush your religious right fanatics, and stomp on the resurgence of your 'alt-right'. Then you need to figure out how they felt so threatened they turned rabid in the first place, and fix that.
And don't ever, ever ally yourself with their kind again to give your political party an edge in an election. That means Republicans need to ditch the religious nuts who haven't discovered fire yet, and the Democrats have to disavow the right-think lefty fanatics who will try to ruin you for not agreeing with their latest lies.
Elections aren't a game where you celebrate a win, they're supposed to be a process to help you select legislative representatives to lead your nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn. More of the same trying to get ahead by hating on the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
"right-think lefty fanatics"
You contradict yourself.
No, he really didn't, but we can call them proponents of liberal intolerance if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Hillary was too far to the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose Trump pardons the neo-nazi terrorist?
He's already claimed to have absolute pardoning powers...
Trump was, as usual, talking about himself.
a jobs program (Score:3, Funny)
Trump has made Constitutional lawyers, fact checkers, and news organizations richer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those willing to do anything to hurt the President at all costs need to remember that there will be more Presidents after Trump. Every challenge whether it be at the Constitutional, Federal, or State level will be used against future Presidents. Presidents the current antagonists actually support. Congress has already usurped some of the historical Executive powers with their limitations on how the President can handle the current sanctions against Russia. Since he has already been judged, without any evide
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those willing to do anything to hurt the President at all costs need to remember that there will be more Presidents after Trump.
Yeah, there's even some dumbasses who claimed that previous Presidents weren't even born in the US!
Congress has already usurped some of the historical Executive powers with their limitations on how the President can handle the current sanctions against Russia.
Then go whining to a court.
Since he has already been judged, without any evidence, of being a Russian agent he is effectively barred from trying to cooperate and improve the US-Russian relationship.
You've apparently missed like the past year of news. There was enough evidence for a DOJ investigation months ago, and it's only grown since then.
It is know looked upon as criminal suspicion when any elected or appointed officials talk to their foreign counterparts.
Only when they fail to disclose those meetings when legally obliged to, and then get caught lying about the contents of the meetings over and over.
Re: (Score:1)
...and cartoonists & comedians.
Re: (Score:1)
DaaaHHHHH! Warn me before yuo post that shti
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has made Constitutional lawyers, fact checkers, and news organizations richer.
May be, but he’s also made them irrelevant.
SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Insightful)
Within seconds of a tweet being posted, he'll have hundreds of replies, almost instantaneously, from the same people consistently, who always manage to get out 6 part tweets within a few seconds of each other.
Spam, essentially. And what do we do with spam? We block it.
Admittedly that's how most people deal with @realDonaldTrump anyway.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is very legitimately arguable that Trump's Twitter account is more official than a White House press briefing. As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Trump's account should be using the mute feature rather than the block feature (though the Twitter mute function seems pretty weak nearly to the point of ineffectiveness), or Trump should stop using Twitter as a presidential communications platform.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:4, Insightful)
It could be viewed more like the press room where official announcements are given to the media. The general public does not have access to this room during press briefings, but they do gain access to the content though the press. Just as I am sure a disruptive member of the press would be removed and possibly banned from attending future press conferences.
So in much the same way if you are being disruptive on twitter you get banned as well. You'll almost certainly still be able to gain access to the contents of tweets though an alternate means, or you know just make a new twitter account.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Interesting)
With Twitter he can't actually prevent anyone from seeing public tweets -- after all they can easily just open an incognito window or create a new Twitter handle -- but he can dictate who interacts with him. And once again, any number of restrictions apply to how we can interact with the President day in and day out.
I am a bit surprised Twitter has not come up with an option to block people but still let them read your tweets. If the case does go against Trump's administration, then it would not surprise me to see this option play out. This is one of the very few things I've agreed with Trump on and man it makes me feel dirtier (than normal).
Re: (Score:3)
Spicer said its official. That makes everything he says subject to the presidential records act, and in no fashion a personal statement.
When he's no longer President, it goes back to a personal account.
His transgender ban is currently the big war on how much this matters. He can issue orders that generals don't take as orders, and suddenly it is an opinion, not policy, and a personal account. But as of right now, it represents the statements of the head of the Executive Branch, this is no longer a private a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, the amount of red tape you propose is absurd and your wrong understanding of twitter while spouting such a thing is disturbing. Anybody can read public tweets, even blocked accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter needs to ban @RealDonaldTrump. Twitter's terms of service clearly state that actions which endanger or threaten others are not allowed. As POTUS, the things he says have very real consequences, and he peers have already had to tell him to tone it down several times.
Can you imagine the damage to Twitter's stock price if a tweet started a nuclear exchange?
Re: (Score:2)
He can issue orders that generals don't take as orders, and suddenly it is an opinion, not policy, and a personal account.
I read an article where Trump visited latest Navy carrier Gerald Ford that uses electromagnetic catapult, Trump said something like "why use something only Einstein can understand, use steam!" Obviously admirals will ignore him and not specify retrofits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Why? Exactly what right exists (in the US) that remotely implies this? What can be interpreted that any given member of any branch of the government has to see/read/listen to anything sent to them? I'm interested in this idea. Does every US postman, as a possible representative of the US gov also have to? The POTUS isn't a special man. He's in a unique position, which is not the same thing. Treating him as something more than he is, because of
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:4, Insightful)
Any person acting as an official representative of the US government has many laws covering his communication with the public. They are alleging that the presidents twitter account is being used for official communications with the public, and as such he can not bar some citizens from receiving those communications.
Re: (Score:2)
> Any person acting as an official representative of the US government has many laws covering his communication with the public.
While I'm very sure this is not true, there's a distinct possibility that I'm just wrong. I would like finding any juris prudence (stare deceisis or statutory) that applies to all federal civil servants, in regards to communication (or just the POTUS, would be very cool). That would be handy in my discussions about civil discourse and would have wide-ranging ramifications, of wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except, of course, that the WH has complete control over who is allowed at press briefings. Your analogy leads to precisely the opposite conclusion you are trying to draw.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is very legitimately arguable that Trump's Twitter account is more official than a White House press briefing. As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Trump's account should be using the mute feature rather than the block feature (though the Twitter mute function seems pretty weak nearly to the point of ineffectiveness), or Trump should stop using Twitter as a presidential communications platform.
Right-wingers are bitterly complaining that private companies are "censoring" Nazis (censoring in sarcastic quotations) however I haven't seen those same people complain about the president of the US, shutting down opponents to his announcement mention anything about censorship. No-sireee... those same people are presenting conspiracy theories to justify what is actually an act of political censorship. Censorship == OK for far right government, not OK for profit seeking corporations (whom they disagree with
Re: (Score:2)
And the difference being..?
Before you answer, ponder for a moment the various media that clog our airwaves and waste paper every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Every publisher has discretion to ignore or block communications. So let's throw the question back at you: why is Trump any different in this regard?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is, at least allegedly, a representative of all the people in the United States of America. I could see him block anyone who isn't a citizen of the USA, but blocking a US citizen is simply something he should not do based on his office.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course he can. It's his personal account.
Within seconds of a tweet being posted, he'll have hundreds of replies, almost instantaneously, from the same people consistently, who always manage to get out 6 part tweets within a few seconds of each other.
Spam, essentially. And what do we do with spam? We block it.
Admittedly that's how most people deal with @realDonaldTrump anyway.
If I was in control at Twitter, I would just make his account viewable/followable by anyone who wants to, though he can still block incoming. He is a government official acting in a government role. FOIA requests apply, and all the rest. Besides twitter is a private company. They can do what the heck they want.
Of course you can get his crap via a simple google search, so its hardly blocked particularly well, and who could stand continuous updates from the mistake. Of course, if I was twitter I'd also l
Re: SubjectIsSubject (Score:1)
The main argument there is she was dodging FOIA and other requests, even though we pretty much know she turned over pretty much everything.
She "turned over pretty much everything" TWO YEARS after leaving office, which kept her official gov't emails unavailable for FOIA requests for up to six years. She also, through her attorneys, hand-picked which emails she would deign to share with the public...
She tried to paint herself as being the 'most transparent' Secretary of state for turning over 30K emails, but she hopes you forget she was also the most opaque Secretary of state having never turned over any official emails for six years.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Interesting)
It's his personal account.
Then why can't he use a personal email account for official business also? I mean, the person who did that got into some trouble, so I heard.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Insightful)
he can use a private service as much as he wants. Since the way Twitter works is to make anything he posts public, the first two can't happen. He can only get in trouble with it if he uses it to illegally reveal classified materials.
Re: (Score:2)
He can only get in trouble with it if he uses it to illegally reveal classified materials.
The great thing about a Trump presidency is that the rest of us learn about the limits of the powers of the presidency.
By definition he cannot leak classified materials. He apparently has the ultimate power to declassify anything. The fact that he says or posts something publicly means that it's declassified.
Re: (Score:2)
send or receive classified materials over an unclassified network,
You mean like when he did exactly that: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/... [cnn.com]
And no, just because this info originally came from a public news article doesn't allow an official from the government to then disclose it.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the person who did that got into some trouble, so I heard.
No, she didn't. You heard wrong. She was of the approved class, and can do no wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The "approved class" seems to be people who work with classified information. As far as I can tell, nobody's been prosecuted for inadvertantly mishandling classified information. Unless you're arguing that Clinton deliberately mishandled it, and you'll have to provide a motive to be believed, she was treated just like anyone else.
Re: SubjectIsSubject (Score:2)
You miss the point, the President can declare anything 'unclassified' and share it with whomever they choose.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Interesting)
"The president is president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States." White House Press Secretary Spicer
Just because Spicer no longer holds that position doesn't automatically make all his previous statements null and void. Now, Sebastian Gorka said "there's a difference between tweets and policy and @realDonaldTrump's feed is the former, not the latter" so once again the White House is giving contradicting messages on their policy. Therefor, since they can't give a coherent policy, the courts will have to decide this. But the White House Communications Director/White House Press Secretary is higher up on the food chain than a Deputy Assistant.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he can. It's his personal account.
What would be interesting is what would be the reaction should Twitter, a private company decide to block his personal account, since they have that right.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he can. It's his personal account.
Donald Trump is no longer a private citizen. And the fact that he uses Twitter to make public policy pronouncements underscores this. Nor does Twitter treat his account like that of a private citizen. After all, they’re not going to ban him when he violates Twitter’s terms of service, such as the prohibition on using Twitter to make threats of violence, (such the one directed at North Korea).
Re: (Score:1)
Please explain in excruciating detail just why it is that blocking a Twitter user from replying to ones tweets should be illegal just because the Twitter feed is an official communications channel of the POTUS. Because rational people just don't get it.
Boycott Twitter (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Brenda knows it, but she believes that her ability to freely choose to not follow is not enough. She wants Twitter to kick Trump off. How tolerant.
Its funny how, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The issue isn't just that people who are blocked can't see what posts, it's about politicians blocking a means for the people they represent from contacting THEM. The argument is that Twitter is a public forum, and it would be like a mayor throwing people out of a city hall meeting just for being critical of him.
Re: (Score:3)
it's about politicians blocking a means for the people they represent from contacting THEM.
Jump the fence into the White House or better yet try to land a helicopter on the White House lawn and then complain that someone is "blocking a means for you (the people) to contact your politician.
Re: (Score:1)
"All they have to do"...
Why should some members of the public be singled out to have to do anything extra at all to receive official policy statements to the public from the president? That's ridiculous.
If Obama walked onto stage to address the public; and then prior to speaking said, hey CBS, Fox, CNN, etc. Broadcast this across the country... except arbiter1's house. He pissed me off so I'm blocking him; i guess if he really wants to see he can go to a neighbors or something and watch it there; but I don'
Re:Its funny how, (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you, lap dog apologist
You, sir, are the problem.
Oh, I thing the GP is wrong. Trump is using his Twitter account as an official communications mechanism, in fact arguably it's the official White House communication channel, given the number of times Trump has used it to overrule his official press secretary in official white house press conferences. I also think Trump is an incompetent, narcissistic blowhard. With small hands.
But your style of response is increasingly common, on both sides of the aisle. Unthinking, unreasoning, reflexive bile directed against anyone you believe disagrees with you. There can be no reasoned debate, which means there is absolutely no possibility of identifying common ground or working towards agreement, or even compromise. You and your kind are a serious threat to democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
You've confused 'being PC' with 'being thoughtful' and 'being civil'. The latter two are not ruining anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You've confused 'being PC' with 'being thoughtful' and 'being civil'. The latter two are not ruining anything.
Being PC is being polite and civil.
"PC" has become a meaningless phrase used to try to shut down discussion when one side cannot rationally rebut the other and is unwilling to reconsider their position.
Ironically, they're using bullying to try to enforce their political dogma. Same with SJW.
Re: (Score:2)
Being PC is being polite and civil.
I was actually careful to avoid using the word 'polite'. I said *thoughtful* and *civil*.
You can be thoughtful and civil without being PC.
Nothing he does in public is private. (Score:1)
He is the public figure. See subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's Administration says a lot of stupid shit (Score:1, Troll)
not the first time, not the last that Trump's administration ignores US law and tradition and decides whatever he does is ok.
Pretty obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The law suit doesn't give a shit about "classy" or "presidential". The only question is legality. Why should it be illegal for a Twitter user to use a feature of Twitter?
Re: (Score:2)
Because idiot snowflakes hate to receive a taste of their own medicine and be treated like they treat others.
I suppose "idiot snowflaces" referred to the individuals being "banned" rather than those doing the banning, right? Otherwise you would have used the singular "an idiot snowflake hates..."
Interesting how such a small change could redirect the direction of the comment by 180 degrees.
Are the two groups of complainers really that different?
reverse own (Score:2)
Considering the Trump administration's record on predicting what is and what is not legal, I'm pretty sure we're about to find out that there's a constitutional amendment from the 1800s that doesn't allow the President to block people on Twitter.
Aggregate Site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Daily Show on Comedy Central did just that:
http://www.cc.com/shows/the-da... [cc.com]
If Trump isn't allowed to "Block" (Score:3)
Then I am looking forward to my Congressional Rep not being allowed to block me on a whim.
While I don't call people names, etc. I can only imagine what my US House Rep's FB feed is gonna look like when she is required to leave stuff she doesn't like up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Does she use her FB account as an official communications channel? Sean Spicer specifically said that Trump's twitter account is an official communications from the POTUS. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic... [nbcnews.com]
By doing so, the administration as changed the nature of Trump's twitter account from personal to official. The courts will need to decide if this is the case. If the courts find that Trump's twitter account is an official communications channel for the POTUS, then a lot of rules apply to it. As a pers
Re: (Score:2)
Then I am looking forward to my Congressional Rep not being allowed to block me on a whim.
While I don't call people names, etc. I can only imagine what my US House Rep's FB feed is gonna look like when she is required to leave stuff she doesn't like up there.
You don't understand how the law works. Trump is in a very different position than your rep since he is president. Any restrictions on him could just be restrictions on him and nobody else. Furthermore, it depends on what court places the restrictions, assuming they get placed. Trump could just appeal and send it back into the courts for years to come. Also your rep could block you and argue that the Trump ruling only applied to Trump and not them and invite you to sue if you don't like it. Anything
Can't have it both ways (Score:2)
So the whitehouse staff is claiming that his 5am shitter tweets are official whitehouse policy.... but that his personal account is not official government documentation and thus subject to freedom of speech concerns?
Sorry guys, you cannot have it both ways, either its the depraved private musings of a senile old man on his own personal account
OR
It is official government documentation and policy announcements, and thus you cannot censor whom has access to reply.
Don't even have authority to make this statement (Score:2, Informative)
The Courts have one job and only one job, to interpret the law.
That means that the administration has no business saying what the law is. That is entirely the Court's power.
So when they try to say what the court can and can not do, they are ALWAYS wrong. They expressly do not have the power or right to say what the law is.
What else Freedom of Speech requires... (Score:1)
People often forget, that for Freedom of Speech to be truely applied, listeners must have the right to decide what they wish to hear.
The lawsuit is basically saying that doesn't apply to the President, which is the opposite of their intent.
Personal vs official (Score:2)
AFAIK, Donald Trump is presently in control of *two* distinct twitter accounts.
First, his personal account, and second, the official whitehouse @POTUS account that a history check confirms was previously used by Barack Obama.
He uses both accounts for separate purposes. It's easy to argue that activity on his personal account has no bearing on his official position or actions as president.
Now, if Trump was blocking people from his presidential twitter, that would be a different ballgame.
We take the Internet too seriously sometimes (Score:2)
We take the Internet too seriously sometimes. Web sites are games. Blocking people on Twitter is like a move in that game. Telling POTUS he can't block people is like telling he can't get crowned in a game of checkers.
Let's say that it is more serious though. Let's say Trump's account is like an open channel to the White House. Well, we've always been free to write an old fashioned letter to POTUS, and he's always been free to throw them in the trash, or direct staffers to filter them with certain crit
Covfefe. (Score:2)
This is the real meaning of covfefe. "You are all taking this far too srsly."
It all makes sense now.
However (Score:2)
How to fix this (Score:2)
Legal Precedence (Score:2)
HPD Ordered to Pay $31K over Censored Facebook Comments
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com... [hawaiifreepress.com]
Court Rules Against Politician Who Banned Access to Her Facebook Page
http://www.foxbusiness.com/fea... [foxbusiness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When we got our own brand of fundamentalists, we also got the insanity that comes with the territory.
Re: (Score:1)
When was the last time you were invited to a WH press briefing?
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing to be solved. Blocking is a feature every Twitter user has. Why should Trump be singled out just because most of the country hates his guts?