# Is it unconstitutional for Trump to ban some reporters? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 27, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710 "2018-07-27T23:25:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/121 "2019-07-11T17:33:11Z")
Check out post #111 for some answers. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/122 "2019-07-11T17:34:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If I am dog catcher do I need court approval to delete someone from my friends list on social media so long as I mention dog catching on my personal account? A judge decides how abusive is too abusive on my personal account in each instance? IT IS NOT HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT IF HE’S CONDUCTING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ON IT. If you’re the dog catcher, don’t do business on your personal account, and the ruling doesn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/123 "2019-07-11T17:39:11Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > **Loach** , I’m kind of with **czarcasm** here that we don’t know yet. I’ll try to make some informed speculation. > > In truth, the president is one-of-a-kind for these purposes. He can unilaterally enact government policy as a the head of the executive branch. There is nothing stopping him from doing so on Twitter. In fact, as the [opinion](http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85818216-9907-41c3-8d7b-d24ba395d263/1/doc/18-1691_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85818216-9907-41c3-8d7b-d24ba395d263/1/hilite/) notes, the president uses Twitter “as a channel for communicating and interacting with the public about his administration,” and that “it is one of the White House’s main vehicles for conducting official business,” for example, by announcing the ban on transgender troops serving in the military. The National Archives has concluded that Trump’s tweets “in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," and thus that his tweets are official presidential records that must be preserved for continuing public access. > > A member of congress doesn’t have an administration. AOC has no unilateral authority to do anything really. She can vote on bills in the chamber and do some stuff as a committee member. None of what she says on Twitter is relevant to either of those official actions. So, there is good reason to suggest that AOC’s account is not “official” in the same way that Trump’s is. What the court said is “Whether First Amendment concerns are triggered when a public official uses his [or presumably her] account in ways that differ from those presented on this appeal will in most instances be a fact‐specific inquiry.” We need more facts to know whether the court would consider AOC’s account “official” but there are good reasons to distinguish between AOC’s Twitter feed and Trump’s. > > The holding found that Trump’s Twitter feed is a public forum. Generally, the government can’t discriminate against different viewpoints in a public forum (or really, in any forum - the government is almost always prohibited from viewpoint discrimination). However, I believe that it might be possible for Trump or AOC to enact a viewpoint neutral policy of excluding abusive posts that would pass first amendment scrutiny. For example, the first amendment generally doesn’t protect obscenity, so I’m not worried if AOC chooses to screen out dick pics. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). It’s likely that Trump or AOC could have a viewpoint neutral policy of excluding comments advocating violence, so white supremacists couldn’t threaten muslims and antifa couldn’t threaten white supremacists. Frankly, as a technical matter, I’m not sure how you do it on Twitter but I think AOC or Trump might be able to do it legally to some degree. Since this case didn’t involve those limits, they aren’t clearly defined yet. Thank you very well stated. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/124 "2019-07-11T17:54:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It is one thing if someone is giving a decent argument against his policies, but if someone is calling him a Nazi, making fun of his tan or his hair, calling his wife a gold digging whore, calling him a child molester, incestuous, and basically what is alleged in every GD thread here, that IMHO is abusive and nobody should have to put up with it on a social media page. If he reads about it on the internet on someone else’s page, then that is too bad, that is free speech, but I don’t see why he needs to provide a platform for it. The “platform” for this speech is owned and operated by Twitter, not the president. And why shouldn’t someone be able to make fun of his tan or his hair, call him a Nazi or incestuous? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/125 "2019-07-11T18:10:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > IT IS NOT HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT IF HE’S CONDUCTING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ON IT. > > If you’re the dog catcher, don’t do business on your personal account, and the ruling doesn’t apply. These lines are blurred all of the time in small towns. People will call the police chief at home or drive over to the Sheriff’s house to talk to him about something. Posters keep saying that this is a limited ruling and keep citing what the court said, and I understand it and I can read it. But when courts rule, they must be logically consistent. This ruling sets the groundwork for the next one and so on. And my concern is the abuse or profanity. Neither are illegal. They are both free speech. I can post a blog all day accusing Trump of being a Nazi or saying he wants to bang his daughter or you name it. But this ruling goes further. It cites free speech principles for saying that what is ostensibly a personal social media account becomes an official, government one when used for official purposes. Fine. But the government cannot ban abusive or profane speech, yet that is generally understood to be a feature of any social media account, as Loach described upthread. If on Loach’s social media page, his agency announced a road closure and he must permit abusive and profane responses (e.g. “You pigs quit eating donuts and go out and clear the fucking road!”) he may very well shut it down. And because his page is a government one, and abusive and profane speech is not illegal, this ruling seems to imply that he must as a matter of law allow the profane and abusive speech or else possibly get a judge to approve of its removal. It is also a vast expansion of the powers of federal courts over stupid social media accounts. These plaintiffs are not harmed in any meaningful way. They can say what they want on a thousand other platforms, including the SDMB. This litigation is simply a middle finger to Donald Trump and the courts need to see that and stay out of it. The problem is that a lot of judges want to join in giving that middle finger as well. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/126 "2019-07-11T18:18:18Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > The “platform” for this speech is owned and operated by Twitter, not the president. And why shouldn’t someone be able to make fun of his tan or his hair, call him a Nazi or incestuous? Oh, well, since Twitter owns it, then it is private action and the court was wrong, no? That may be technically correct, but not a matter of custom. It is understood that I can customize my social media accounts to exclude people that will harass or abuse me, even though that abuse may be perfectly legal in other contexts. People should be able to make abusive or profane comments towards the President for any legal reason that they want, but they have no particular right to do it on “his” (meaning what Twitter has permitted him to control) portion of social media, anymore than they can stand in the Oval Office and say the same thing. Time, place, and manner and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/127 "2019-07-11T18:25:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Oh, well, since Twitter owns it, then it is private action and the court was wrong, no? > > That may be technically correct, but not a matter of custom. It is understood that I can customize my social media accounts to exclude people that will harass or abuse me, even though that abuse may be perfectly legal in other contexts. > > People should be able to make abusive or profane comments towards the President for any legal reason that they want, but they have no particular right to do it on “his” (meaning what Twitter has permitted him to control) portion of social media, anymore than they can stand in the Oval Office and say the same thing. Time, place, and manner and all that. Did you read the ruling, or at least the excerpt in post #111? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/128 "2019-07-11T18:28:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Oh, well, since Twitter owns it, then it is private action and the court was wrong, no? Twitter owns the platform but isn’t the one that was blocking people. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/129 "2019-07-11T18:28:17Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > The “platform” for this speech is owned and operated by Twitter, not the president. And why shouldn’t someone be able to make fun of his tan or his hair, call him a Nazi or incestuous? The fact that the platform is owned by Twitter isn’t really relevant I think. Twitter has a feature that allows you to block people so it appears they are ok with blocking people who make fun of him or for any other reason. Blocking is ok with Twitter. It’s not ok with the court. > [@UltraVires](#): > > But the government cannot ban abusive or profane speech, yet that is generally understood to be a feature of any social media account, as Loach described upthread. If on Loach’s social media page, his agency announced a road closure and he must permit abusive and profane responses (e.g. “You pigs quit eating donuts and go out and clear the fucking road!”) he may very well shut it down. > > And because his page is a government one, and abusive and profane speech is not illegal, this ruling seems to imply that he must as a matter of law allow the profane and abusive speech or else possibly get a judge to approve of its removal. Yes that is one of my concerns. That’s the reality of the world today. Government entities use platforms owned by private companies to get out useful and sometimes important information. Road closures are something that we do put out over social media along with other breaking events. As I stated above there is a disclaimer about removing posts that contain profanity and several other things. As of right now I think that covers us still since we are not in the 2nd Circuit but I’m not sure how it affects those that are covered. It appears to be unsettled. Ok another question that may or may not have an answer in the ruling. If Trump today puts out a tweet saying his realdonaldtrump account is from forever forward only going to be for his own personal thoughts and feelings and official announcements will be on the White House account, would that change anything? Or is this account forever more going to be considered “official?” It’s GQ so just assume he would be able to follow through. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/130 "2019-07-11T18:28:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This litigation is simply a middle finger to Donald Trump and the courts need to see that and stay out of it. I think it’s a good ruling, and I think it should apply to AOC, or any other politician, too. I think you’re just giving the middle finger to the First Amendment simply because Trump is involved, so accusations of bias can go both ways. In general, do you believe the government has a right to curtail exercise of First Amendment rights because the speech is uncivil? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/131 "2019-07-11T18:42:15Z")
By the way, here are the actual tweets from the people who Trump blocked. [https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-3%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20C.pdf](https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-3%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20C.pdf) [https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-4%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20D.pdf](https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-4%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20D.pdf) [https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-5%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20E.pdf](https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-5%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20E.pdf) [https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-7%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20G.pdf](https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-7%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20G.pdf) [https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-8%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20H.pdf](https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-8%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20H.pdf) [https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-6%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20F.pdf](https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/ECF%20No.%2033-6%20-%20Stipulation%20Ex.%20F.pdf) I just did a quick skim of these, and while they are strongly opinionated, I see nothing that would approach the line of abusive and certainly not obscene. Just to pick one tweet as a flavor of what these all seem to be: > [@](#): > > @salawm @realDonaldTrump Trump of North America, who is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind stripping his own people of their healthcare, must be repealed & replaced I would submit that if someone doesn’t want to be criticized in this way, they have zero place in public life. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/132 "2019-07-11T19:21:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it’s a good ruling, and I think it should apply to AOC, or any other politician, too. > > I think you’re just giving the middle finger to the First Amendment simply because Trump is involved, so accusations of bias can go both ways. > > In general, do you believe the government has a right to curtail exercise of First Amendment rights because the speech is uncivil? Keeping it more towards the ruling and possible clarifications from a higher court, I think when you break it down to one individual tweet or message it’s easy to say that free speech must be protected at all costs. What it doesn’t take into account is the reality of social media and the methods of modern communications. It may not come from this case but lines will be drawn with regard to acceptable and unacceptable behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/133 "2019-07-11T19:28:22Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > What it doesn’t take into account is the reality of social media and the methods of modern communications. But it is also trivially easy to ignore unwanted communications without impacting anyone’s First Amendment rights. For example, let’s say someone sends annoying letters to a congressman’s office. I think they have a right to send them and should not be blocked from doing so; but that doesn’t mean that the congressman has to read them. Similarly, a politician doesn’t have to scroll through their twitter feeds to see what people are saying about him in responses. They can also just scroll down past tweets they don’t like, like every single other twitter user. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/134 "2019-07-11T20:23:21Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > The fact that the platform is owned by Twitter isn’t really relevant I think. Absolutely correct. The 2nd Circuit explained why by analogizing it to the government renting a building. Just because it doesn’t own the building, it doesn’t mean that the government can deny people their rights inside it. > [@Loach](#): > > Yes that is one of my concerns. That’s the reality of the world today. Government entities use platforms owned by private companies to get out useful and sometimes important information. Road closures are something that we do put out over social media along with other breaking events. As I stated above there is a disclaimer about removing posts that contain profanity and several other things. As of right now I think that covers us still since we are not in the 2nd Circuit but I’m not sure how it affects those that are covered. It appears to be unsettled. Can you disable all comments? That is absolutely viewpoint neutral but still allows you to broadcast messages on social media. If the problem is that it doesn’t allow you to collect the favorable comments that you want without also getting the critical comments, well, that’s the rub. The government can’t really do that. > [@Loach](#): > > Ok another question that may or may not have an answer in the ruling. If Trump today puts out a tweet saying his realdonaldtrump account is from forever forward only going to be for his own personal thoughts and feelings and official announcements will be on the White House account, would that change anything? Or is this account forever more going to be considered “official?” It’s GQ so just assume he would be able to follow through. This is somewhat tricky. I’ll credit your hypothetical by assuming that the president follows through on his promise as best as any person could. That would also require, in my humble opinion, not using any government staff to run the account. (Right now, the account is partially run by his press secretary and other government staffers.) I think he would also need to scrub the account of any trace of official actions. Those tweets belong in the national archive, but not in his “private account” for only select people to see and interact with. Perhaps, in that case, he could reclaim this as a private account. However, as I noted when discussing AOC’s similar but different account, the president is weird. The country’s executive authority is vested solely in him. If he were to tweet out from his “public” account that “all federal employees have a paid day off tomorrow. Merry Christmas in July!,” that proclamation would be vested with his full authority to give everyone a day off. If he were to issue the same statement from his “personal” account, it has the exact same authority because that authority is vested in him. It’s not that one Twitter account has the authority and the other lacks it. So, the issue is, how long does his “private” account have to remain purely private before he is entitled to the absolute, irrebuttable presumption that nothing he says on the account is an “official action”? Well, the most-confidence inspiring answer is when he is no longer president, there can be no ambiguity. Any time before that, there is always the potential for him to use it for official purposes, and thus, no person should be hindered interacting with the account on the basis of their viewpoints so everyone shares the same opportunity to interact with the president regardless of their viewpoints. There’s another problem with his trying to use it as a purely personal account - it’s not fully in his control. Other people can interact with him on Twitter and they can raise official matters and advocate for public policies as they choose. If Trump gives some people preferential access to his personal account on the basis of their shared viewpoints, those people will be better able to express their policy preferences to him. (This same argument applies to AOC. For what it’s worth, I think the best policy for her would be to not engage in viewpoint discrimination either). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/135 "2019-07-11T20:32:55Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Keeping it more towards the ruling and possible clarifications from a higher court, I think when you break it down to one individual tweet or message it’s easy to say that free speech must be protected at all costs. What it doesn’t take into account is the reality of social media and the methods of modern communications. It may not come from this case but lines will be drawn with regard to acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Right, but the problem will be in the enforcement and the fact that you have to pay lawyers to litigate the issue. If on your social media page you have a guy that both: 1) politely and articulately disagrees with the actions of your department, yet also, 2) calls your mother and your wife nasty names, and you ban him, he will claim that his banning was a result of #1 and cite this case as precedent. Your department gets to pay lawyers to go through pages of posts to show that “See, we didn’t ban this guy; didn’t ban that guy!” Or if you promote the agency bake sale next month, why didn’t you let the guy say that you could make $20k working from home? You only want your commercial speech allowed! That is the main problem; not the case law that comes out of it. For every Circuit Court decision and definitely Supreme Court decision, there are thousands of other people out there that settle with monetary damages because they cannot afford to litigate these matters or simply wish them to go away. Those are the real consequences of court decisions that claim to only decide a particular issue. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/136 "2019-07-11T20:36:40Z")
> [@Keeping hardwood floors shiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keeping-hardwood-floors-shiny/113304/5): > > Ok another question that may or may not have an answer in the ruling. If Trump today puts out a tweet saying his realdonaldtrump account is from forever forward only going to be for his own personal thoughts and feelings and official announcements will be on the White House account, would that change anything? Or is this account forever more going to be considered “official?” It’s GQ so just assume he would be able to follow through. I would think that would be governed by the venerable legal principle, " The proof of the pudding is in the eating." 😛 If he truly changed his posting habits, never mentioned any federal policies, never mentioned his administrion, never used the twitter account to give operational instructions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, never mentioned “fake news” as a response to posts about his policy, that would be significant. And if he instead just used his twitter account like any other semi-retired granddad, to post about his golf game, brag about his grandkids’ performances in the school play, and the occasional kitty pic and snapshot of the sunset at Mar-el-Lago - in short, if he changed so it was a purely, truly personal Twitter account, that would be significant. And, if any time someone posted about his administration, whether favourably or dissing, he had a stock reply: “This is my purely personal Twitter account and is not meant to discuss political issues. If you wish to post something about my Administration, please do so on the official White House twitter account.” That too would be significant. But if he just posts that this is his personal Twitter account, and then carries on in the same way as he has since he was inaugerated, I would bet that the courts would say that it’s a functional test, and he’s still using it to communicate his political views and declarations of policy. Meaningless disclaimer cannot negate the First amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/137 "2019-07-11T20:49:32Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If on your social media page you have a guy that both: 1) politely and articulately disagrees with the actions of your department, yet also, 2) calls your mother and your wife nasty names, and you ban him, he will claim that his banning was a result of #1 and cite this case as precedent. Your department gets to pay lawyers to go through pages of posts to show that “See, we didn’t ban this guy; didn’t ban that guy!” If one opposes this ruling, one supports blocking a person who did 1 and not 2. Politicians deal with all sorts of actual crap all the time, from people making death threats, to having milkshakes thrown on them, to being harassed at restaurants. Really, people criticizing politicians on Twitter is a non-concern for 99% of politicians. After all, the politicians themselves are often saying as hateful things as the people who respond to them. Making interaction with the unwashed masses out to be a major headache is to be completely out of touch with how actual public figures interact the vast majority of the time. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/138 "2019-07-11T21:20:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Right, but the problem will be in the enforcement and the fact that you have to pay lawyers to litigate the issue. What’s your point? That there’s no bright line here? That’s just the way things work sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/139 "2019-07-13T19:03:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What’s your point? That there’s no bright line here? That’s just the way things work sometimes. Sometimes it does and must. But sometimes the courts can stay out of things where there are no judicially manageable standards or it would cause a shift in the balance of power. Instead of creating a new free speech right to post on someone’s social media account, the court could realize that this new regime will necessarily involve absurdly complex issues, balance it against the really de minimis intrusion on freedom of speech and stay out of it. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/140 "2019-07-13T19:11:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Sometimes it does and must. But sometimes the courts can stay out of things where there are no judicially manageable standards or it would cause a shift in the balance of power. > > Instead of creating a new free speech right to post on someone’s social media account, the court could realize that this new regime will necessarily involve absurdly complex issues, balance it against the really de minimis intrusion on freedom of speech and stay out of it. Trump is the one who made his personal account an official channel of communication of the White House. Now he has to play by the rules. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710.md?page=8)