The ruling doesn’t pertain to private social media accounts, only official ones, so no, it doesn’t mandate that public figures have to take all forms of abuse.
I’m fully in favor of the same rules applying to AOC. The First Amendment guarantees the right to seek redress grievances, so complaining about a politician’s policies, even using profanity, IMHO should be given very great deference, even on social media.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Are they mandated to take abuse and allow every troll on their official account? Do you have to let someone post a picture of their penis every minute of every day to your official Twitter? Because if they’re not allowed to block guess what’s going to happen. The president or any other public officials wouldn’t stand by and let someone unleash a profanity filled diatribe against them without doing anything. Mandating that their social media accounts can not block abusive people goes too far in my opinion.
Yes, that’s exactly what they have to do. If they don’t like it they can choose not to use Twitter for making official announcements.
Donald Trump chose to open that door, and permit the trolls to charge in.
Is that true? AOC has to let people post penis pictures to her Twitter account? If that was the case, why hasn’t someone set up an automated bot that posts a penis picture to her Twitter every 5 seconds?
Too bad the President didn’t claim he was being harassed or abused. The ruling states that the Government conceded that the people who were banned were engaging in a legitimate and protected First Amendment activity, but we’re blocked because they disagreed with the President (see page 15).
If we get to the point where someone is posting obscene images on the President’s Twitter feed, I would suspect that Twitter would banish such posts due to their content restrictions, making the issue moot as to whether the President’s feelings are apt to be hurt. The court obviously doesn’t have to rule on issues not represented by the facts of the actual case. They also didn’t rule on whether the President may block space aliens who are trying to control his bodily essence through telepathic social media messages.
I’m asking that question. Hopefully someone more lawyerly than me can answer.
Does the ruling state that the president (or as precedent any public official using social media to post official information) have to allow posts and posters who only offer abuse? Is it a bright line nobody can be blocked? Simple question.
Can you clarify what you mean by “abuse”?
That’s the rub isn’t it? But that’s a separate question. If Trump or AOC or whoever is posting can’t block anyone then the question is moot.
If they are allowed to block abusive posters then it becomes a question of what abuse is. The first question must be answered before the second one is relevant.
I’m trying to keep this as GQie as possible. Everyone has an opinion about what is right. I’m trying to get a clarification on what the ruling says. Does it allow for any circumstances where someone can be blocked or must all posts remain regardless of content?
Since you are the one using the term, could you perhaps tell me what you think it might mean?
From the ruling:
No talk of abuse here.
As far as how official his twitter account is:
If someone is blocked they are not able to see these official missives from The President Of The United States.
Right. Can’t exclude someone for expressing ideas they disagree with.
So under what circumstances can they exclude someone?
Does it allow for any circumstances where someone can be blocked or must all posts remain regardless of content? (Reposted because it seems to be a hard question to answer)
I think the only factual answer is “It remains to be seen”.
This particular ruling is about the president but since all public officials see the importance of social the effect of the ruling is much broader than one account on Twitter.
If that’s the case then it may have to be addressed in the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court.
The current ruling is from the 2nd Court of Appeals. Am I right to assume it was heard there because this was his long standing personal account and his home of record is New York? The new AOC lawsuit is also being filed in New York.
My town and department both have disclaimers on their Facebook pages noting under what circumstances posts would be deleted. We do not fall under the 2nd Circuit so it doesn’t apply to us as of yet but I am wondering how a SCOTUS ruling will affect that.
The lawsuit does not set an overall policy on blocking, such as circumstances when blocking might be appropriate (e.g., death threats). It just says that the President can’t block people because they disagree with him.
The lawsuit was simply related to Trump blocking people who were critical of Trump. As far as the ruling states, the Government did not allege that the blocked people had engaged in profane or threatening behavior. So the question you are asking – whether there’s a line beyond which someone’s comments become not protected by the First Amendment – was not explored because it seems nobody alleged this was the case.
To use an analogy: let’s say the White House banned protesters from carrying signs in front of the White House that criticized the President. A court rules that they can’t do that.
If someone comes back and says, “Oh yeah? But what if the people are rioting?!?!”
That’s a perfectly fine question, but it wasn’t the issue before the court, and the court doesn’t have to lay out all the rules for who may and may not gather in front of the White House – are signs okay? what about drums? what about balloons? what about dance circles? what about throwing bottles? what about throwing trash? what about throwing confetti? etc – since the court is just ruling that people carrying signs can’t be banned just because the signs are critical.
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 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.
Abusive posts will by definition be from non-supporters and banning abusive posts could never be “viewpoint neutral.”
The problem is the inverse: regarding posts from non-supporters as being abusive.
I would like to see a sampling of posts from those who were banned. If they are like the posts on the SDMB in every Trump thread, then I would agree that he should be able to ban them.
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.
But he is an elected official. Is it only federal elected officials or because he is so high up? 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?
What if I want to ban spam? That is free speech as well. Can he not remove posts that say he can make $20k week from home, click here to find out how? Oh, but those are content neutral, huh? What if they say, “Trump Sucks! So click here to make $20k/week from home!”?
I agree with the spirit of the ruling, but enforceability seems to cause more issues than the original problem.