# Is Twitter-blocking by The President a violation of the 1st Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366 "2017-06-07T16:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/61 "2017-06-08T19:21:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not aware that non-legal violations of those are possible, unless you are talking about the spirit of those two things? Even if we assume we are talking about the spirit of the First Amendment, I don’t see a violation, and you have to twist it pretty hard to find one. The spirit of the First Amendment is about being able to speak/worship/assemble/complain freely. There’s really nothing in the concept that requires the government to give a shit about what you are speaking/praying/assembling/complaining _about_. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/62 "2017-06-08T19:41:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think a simple reading of The Presidential Records Act of 1978 indicates that a copy has to preserved for the record. Well, seeing as how every one of them has printed in every newspaper, paper and online, I think that’s covered. If not, I feel certain Twitter can do a printout of inanities that the President has put forth. Or we could do a google search. Nothing is every _really_ deleted in this day and age. I do not see how Twitter blocking can possibly be a 1st Amendment issue. It’s not like they can’t get the information. Even people smart enough _not to have_ twitter accounts can get those. Some twitter users are being blocked from the President, but they still have their _own_ accounts and continue to be free to tweet whatever they like. You are free to stand up on a soapbox, but I don’t have to let you use mine. ---
**Author:** ![HeweyLogan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heweylogan/32/547_2.png) [@HeweyLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeweyLogan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/63 "2017-06-08T19:52:51Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Some twitter users are being blocked from the President, but they still have their _own_ accounts and continue to be free to tweet whatever they like. And have everyone else see it (Minus Trump and anyone else who has that particular person blocked). It seems to me you really _really_ want this to be true and an issue but can’t come to terms with it not being one. You’ll have to wait until tomorrow (or later this afternoon… or even next hour). ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/64 "2017-06-08T20:04:35Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Well, seeing as how every one of them has printed in every newspaper, paper and online, I think that’s covered. If not, I feel certain Twitter can do a printout of inanities that the President has put forth. Or we could do a google search. Nothing is every _really_ deleted in this day and age. I’m not sure that deliberately deleting originals and relying on copies provided by other sources not directly connected to the President is what the Act has in mind, but I am open to the idea if it can be shown to have happened in the past. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/65 "2017-06-08T20:09:14Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Does it make any difference that there is now a segment of Americans that cannot directly read what the Press Secretary called official communications from the President? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > What do you mean they can’t read it? I don’t have a Twitter account _at all_ and I can read his tweets: [x.com](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) You beat me to it. If Trump could block people from _reading_ his tweets, I think there’d be a real issue. But as you say, you can read anyone’s tweets just the way you read any other Web page, without anyone being able to block you. The only thing Trump’s blocking is your ability to _respond directly to his tweets_ in the way that particular medium lets you do if you have a Twitter account, and that sucks I guess, but that’s life. There’s no First Amendment issue here. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/66 "2017-06-08T20:09:30Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > It seems to me you really _really_ want this to be true and an issue but can’t come to terms with it not being one. Not really, no. I don’t feel this is an issue at all. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/67 "2017-06-08T20:31:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The press secretary cannot, by his utterance, transform a Twitter account created by Trump well before he became a candidate into an official government asset. > > That’s prohibited by the Takings Clause. 🙂 Which only means that Mr. Trump is owed a LOT of money by the Government for seizing his Twitter account, which is the biggest in the world. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think that if The President’s Own Press Secretary was saying something that wasn’t factually correct as far as the White House is concerned, they wouldn’t be letting him say it during press conferences at the White House. Blink. Blink. Blink. Did you really just say that? Don’t you know that [Trump moves so fast that people can’t expect accuracy from press briefings anymore?](http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/05/13/trump-stop-press-conferences-moving-fast-sot-newday.cnn) ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/68 "2017-06-08T20:36:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Which only means that Mr. Trump is owed a LOT of money by the Government for seizing his Twitter account, which is the biggest in the world. Please do NOT give Trump the idea that he can profit from this, too. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/69 "2017-06-08T20:40:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Don’t you know that [Trump moves so fast that people can’t expect accuracy from press briefings anymore?](http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/05/13/trump-stop-press-conferences-moving-fast-sot-newday.cnn) Yeah, there IS that little problem. Are there any statements from The White House contradicting the Press Secretary’s statement that all Presidential tweets are official statements from the Prez hisself yet? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/70 "2017-06-08T20:44:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It sure should be…if I were a lawyer presenting a case and/or this was a court of law. > But I’m not. I’m just a civvie that has noticed a few articles that seem to have made a case(NOT a legal case, before you try to bring up that definition of the word) that the President _might_ be violating the 1st Amendment and/or the Presidential Records Act of 1978. If you have caselaw, then add it to the pile. If you have an informed opinion, then that is welcome, too. > At the beginning of all this I gave a preliminary opinion based on what I have read so far, and welcomed other information and opinions. Such are still welcome. None of the few articles have actually offered up a cogent legal theory to support what they’re suggesting might be the case. You offered up those articles without presenting a cogent legal theory to buttress their claims. I am not aware of any cogent legal theories that might support these claims. So the common thread here is… a lack of cogent legal theory. My opinion is: there is no First Amendment or statutory violation arising from the President’s decision to block people from his @RealDonaldTrump Twitter handle. It would fall to the person making the opposite claim to identify the specific theory that there IS such a violation. ---
**Author:** ![HeweyLogan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heweylogan/32/547_2.png) [@HeweyLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeweyLogan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/71 "2017-06-08T20:45:16Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Not really, no. I don’t feel this is an issue at all. Sorry. Meant that part of my post for Czarcasm (The OP), not you. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/72 "2017-06-08T20:51:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yeah, there IS that little problem. Are there any statements from The White House contradicting the Press Secretary’s statement that all Presidential tweets are official statements from the Prez hisself yet? See post 56. Spicer can say that Trump has annexed Mars: it is inherently a unsupported claim with no reason to take it seriously, and “The White House” failing to contradict such a silly claim has no bearing on the truth of it. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/73 "2017-06-08T20:58:58Z")
Apparently, _nothing_ is official White House Policy unless it is signed by the President in front of witnesses…or are there exceptions to that, too? ---
**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:** [June 8, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/74 "2017-06-08T21:04:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Apparently, _nothing_ is official White House Policy unless it is signed by the President in front of witnesses…or are there exceptions to that, too? What on earth are you talking about? White House staff make policy decisions all the time, to the extent that they have a legal basis to do so. But just because a White House staffer says something is so, does not make it so. I’m starting to think this thread is some kind of joke. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/75 "2017-06-08T22:14:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Apparently, _nothing_ is official White House Policy unless it is signed by the President in front of witnesses…or are there exceptions to that, too? No, and for a guy who’s just a curious amateur seeking information from a purely neutral perspective, you seem remarkably resistant to this particular information: there is no real legal relevance to “official” in this context. Spicer did not say that Trump has donated the account to the government. He didn’t say that the the account is nor officially subject to NARA restrictions. And even if he did say those things, that doesn’t make them true. Spicer cannot donate a Twitter account he doesn’t own. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2017, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/76 "2017-06-09T00:56:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > None of the few articles have actually offered up a cogent legal theory to support what they’re suggesting might be the case. > > You offered up those articles without presenting a cogent legal theory to buttress their claims. > > I am not aware of any cogent legal theories that might support these claims. > > So the common thread here is… a lack of cogent legal theory. > > My opinion is: there is no First Amendment or statutory violation arising from the President’s decision to block people from his @RealDonaldTrump Twitter handle. It would fall to the person making the opposite claim to identify the specific theory that there IS such a violation. Did you not read the Volokh post? It offers a cogent legal theory. The replies to tweets operate as a limited public forum from which comments may not be excluded on the basis of viewpoint. EV endorses this framework but is skeptical that the account’s actions count as government actions–which is fair. There are clear arguments both ways given the way Trump uses the account for official business. You may not agree with that theory. But saying it isn’t cogent seems plainly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2017, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/77 "2017-06-09T01:14:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Did you not read the Volokh post? > > It offers a cogent legal theory. The replies to tweets operate as a limited public forum from which comments may not be excluded on the basis of viewpoint. EV endorses this framework but is skeptical that the account’s actions count as government actions–which is fair. There are clear arguments both ways given the way Trump uses the account for official business. > > You may not agree with that theory. But saying it isn’t cogent seems plainly wrong. I did. Drawing from the Cacheris opinions in the Davison v. Plowman and Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors cases, there is a key difference between " is run by a government agency," and " is run by an individual officeholder." @RealDonaldTrump is the latter. “The mere fact that Defendant Randall holds public office does not subject every social media account she controls to First Amendment scrutiny.” Eugene says: “Again, my inclination is to say that @RealDonaldTrump, an account that Trump began to use long before he became president, and one that is understood as expressing his own views — apparently in his own words and with his own typos — rather than some institutional position of the executive branch, would likely be seen as privately controlled, so that his blocking decisions wouldn’t be constrained by the First Amendment.” He lays out the factors that might cause a private account to be considered public bit does not suggest that they apply here. So there is a cogent legal theory for some private accounts, where “…officeholders have involved their staffers in the maintenance of the social media account,” but not one for Trump’s Twitter, which warts and all appears to be his and not his staff’s. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2017, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/78 "2017-06-09T01:20:10Z")
I read Prof Volokh as well and thought it was well laid out. I think the case for @POTUS may be stronger, but still treading relatively new ground. Still not sure if we’re discussing the law, or the spirit of it, or something else - that seems muddied. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/79 "2017-06-09T01:45:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I did. > > Drawing from the Cacheris opinions in the Davison v. Plowman and Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors cases, there is a key difference between " is run by a government agency," and " is run by an individual officeholder." @RealDonaldTrump is the latter. “The mere fact that Defendant Randall holds public office does not subject every social media account she controls to First Amendment scrutiny.” > > Eugene says: “Again, my inclination is to say that @RealDonaldTrump, an account that Trump began to use long before he became president, and one that is understood as expressing his own views — apparently in his own words and with his own typos — rather than some institutional position of the executive branch, would likely be seen as privately controlled, so that his blocking decisions wouldn’t be constrained by the First Amendment.” > > He lays out the factors that might cause a private account to be considered public bit does not suggest that they apply here. > > So there is a cogent legal theory for some private accounts, where “…officeholders have involved their staffers in the maintenance of the social media account,” but not one for Trump’s Twitter, which warts and all appears to be his and not his staff’s. One might argue that the horrendous grammar, misspelling and lack of coherency proves that no staffers have been able to manage his account. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366/80 "2017-06-09T03:41:00Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > Why doesn’t the White House disable all comments on his tweets? I’m serious. If he doesn’t allow comments that disagree with him, what value is there to the comments except to stroke his fragile ego? (OK, I suspect that’s exactly what President Snowflake wants, but I don’t think it’s healthy.) I don’t think it’s that easy on Twitter. You can block people individually, and some people have made filters and block lists, but to block everyone globally would mean no one who is logged in can read your tweets, which would be idiotic, so I don’t think anyone has come up with a way to do that. There may be a way to mute everyone instead, so they can see your stuff but you don’t have to look at theirs, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of Twitter in the first place. It’s a conversation after all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-twitter-blocking-by-the-president-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/788366.md?page=5)