Is Twitter-blocking by The President a violation of the 1st Amendment?

[John_Mace]

@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. I don’t know what standard you are looking for before we can start considering an issued statement to be official-maybe White house lawyers giving sworn testimony before Congress itself?

So, you do think it would be legally binding? Is there any precedent for that? Also, per my post #34, why would the Press Secretary have the legal authority to declare something “official”?

[Czarcasm]

Another argument against his personal Twitter account being treated the same as any other account is the problem of his deleting tweets from his own account, as discussed in this recent Forbes article. Apparently, although the official White has Twitter account keeps a permanent backup of anything deleted, Trump’s personal account does not, which run afoul of The Presidential Records Act of 1978, which states

The term “Presidential records” means [all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form]†, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, 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.
Such term includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The article then shows examples of tweets that he has removed that fall into that definition.

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

So, you do think it would be legally binding? Is there any precedent for that? Also, per my post #34, why would the Press Secretary have the legal authority to declare something “official”?

I didn’t bring up the term “legally binding”-Is there some reason you want to steer the argument in that direction?

[Bricker]

@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. I don’t know what standard you are looking for before we can start considering an issued statement to be official-maybe White house lawyers giving sworn testimony before Congress itself?

If the press secretary could change the way the law works, then the travel ban would be in place; he’s declared it to be legal.

Whether his statement is “official,” or not is of little consequence. The government cannot transform a private Twitter account into a public forum by announcement, even if the account holder is the President and the announcer is his press secretary.

Do you have any case law that suggests otherwise?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Czarcasm

I didn’t bring up the term “legally binding”-Is there some reason you want to steer the argument in that direction?

You started a thread about whether the use of twitter was a violation of law, and as support for your position, mentioned a statement made by the press secretary.

So the question of whether the statement by the press secretary’s statement has any legal force is relevant to the question at hand, and you introduced it.

One way we could resolve this point is to agree that basically everything Spicer says is complete bullshit.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

Another argument against his personal Twitter account being treated the same as any other account is the problem of his deleting tweets from his own account, as discussed in this recent Forbes article. Apparently, although the official White has Twitter account keeps a permanent backup of anything deleted, Trump’s personal account does not, which run afoul of The Presidential Records Act of 1978, which states
The article then shows examples of tweets that he has removed that fall into that definition.

So the President has to keep a copy for himself, or it violates the First Amendment?

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

If the press secretary could change the way the law works, then the travel ban would be in place; he’s declared it to be legal.

Whether his statement is “official,” or not is of little consequence. The government cannot transform a private Twitter account into a public forum by announcement, even if the account holder is the President and the announcer is his press secretary.

Do you have any case law that suggests otherwise?

Once again, I am not talking about what is “legally binding”-that is not the topic of this thread, whether what he posts in his personal account is what is of concern to me(and apparently several major websites and the Press Secretary himself) and as I have already stated in the OP

Now, I am not a lawyer and cannot comment authoritatively on whether this is legal, but I certainly find it unethical at the very least.

I don’t know how many I have to say that I am not a lawyer for you to quit asking me(and so many others) to provide “case law”, but frankly it’s tiring.

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

So the President has to keep a copy for himself, or it violates the First Amendment?

I think a simple reading of The Presidential Records Act of 1978 indicates that a copy has to preserved for the record. Do you think that if he just preserves a copy for personal access only it satisfies the requirement of The Presidential Records Act?

[Czarcasm]

@iamthewalrus_3

One way we could resolve this point is to agree that basically everything Spicer says is complete bullshit.

But to do that we need to know when the President himself is speaking bullshit, since Spicer is supposed to be is mouthpiece.

[Whack-a-Mole]

If the president released statements via The New York Times would it be ok if he insisted that certain subscribers to the Times don’t get the page he wrote delivered to them?

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

Once again, I am not talking about what is “legally binding”-that is not the topic of this thread, whether what he posts in his personal account is what is of concern to me(and apparently several major websites and the Press Secretary himself) and as I have already stated in the OP
I don’t know how many I have to say that I am not a lawyer for you to quit asking me(and so many others) to provide “case law”, but frankly it’s tiring.

But:

@Czarcasm

I think a simple reading of The Presidential Records Act of 1978 indicates that a copy has to preserved for the record. Do you think that if he just preserves a copy for personal access only it satisfies the requirement of The Presidential Records Act?

So are you asking about the non-legal implications of the First Amendment and the Presidential Records Act of 1978, then?

[D_Anconia]

@Czarcasm

Once again, I am not talking about what is “legally binding”-that is not the topic of this thread, whether what he posts in his personal account is what is of concern to me(and apparently several major websites and the Press Secretary himself) and as I have already stated in the OP
I don’t know how many I have to say that I am not a lawyer for you to quit asking me(and so many others) to provide “case law”, but frankly it’s tiring.

If it’s tiring you, perhaps you shouldn’t start threads in Great Debates about what violates the First Amendment, and then go on to state that something violates the Presidential Records Act.

[Richard_Parker]

90% of the posts in this thread don’t even understand the legal theory being offered here.

Why would you bother posting before actually reading about the legal theories? What do you get from that?

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

So are you asking about the non-legal implications of the First Amendment and the Presidential Records Act of 1978, then?

Before I answer, I would like to know if you have read any of the links given so far and, if so, are you disagreeing with what they are saying, or are you disagreeing with my (admittedly amateur and simplistic) interpretations of what they are saying?

[Czarcasm]

By the way, Bricker, since you are more learned when it comes to legal issues, if you have any case law that pertains to the issues raised in this thread then cite away.
edited to add: and it would be nice if you gave the content, and not just the name and/or case number. Not all of us have easy access to those sources and/or the training to use them properly.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Czarcasm

Before I answer, I would like to know if you have read any of the links given so far and, if so, are you disagreeing with what they are saying, or are you disagreeing with my (admittedly amateur and simplistic) interpretations of what they are saying?

What they’re saying is “we’re not sure how this works,” for the most part. My (slightly less amateur but still not fully informed) opinion is that this is an interesting scenario which is not on all fours with existing law.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

By the way, Bricker, since you are more learned when it comes to legal issues, if you have any case law that pertains to the issues raised in this thread then cite away.
edited to add: and it would be nice if you gave the content, and not just the name and/or case number. Not all of us have easy access to those sources and/or the training to use them properly.

JIM: That thing you’re doing is illegal!

TONY: No, it’s not.

JIM: Is so.

TONY: Is not. What law does it violate?

JIM: What law says you can do it?

TONY: I asked you for a cite to the law that’s being violated.

JIM: And I asked YOU for a cite to the law that says you can do it!

(In tonight’s performance, the part of Jim will be played by Czarcasm.)

There is no case law that declares a private Twitter account can transform into a public forum because a press secretary says it’s “official.”

But the point here is that none of your citations lay out a cogent legal theory for why this might suddenly be the case.

So the difference in my asking you for a case law citation and you asking me for one is that my claim is: no such case exists. My cite is the Federal Reporter, which lists every federal circuit case.

Your cite should be the specific case that supports your theory.

[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.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

I think a simple reading of The Presidential Records Act of 1978 indicates that a copy has to preserved for the record.

So do I.

But you said

the official White has Twitter account keeps a permanent backup of anything deleted…

So a copy has been preserved for the record.

Do you think that if he just preserves a copy for personal access only it satisfies the requirement of The Presidential Records Act?

What does the word “just” in this sentence refer to?

Regards,
Shodan

[Bone]

@Czarcasm

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.

(my bold)

How do you reconcile the statement that you are not making a legal claim while simultaneously raising potential 1st amendment and Presidential Records Act violations? I’m not aware that non-legal violations of those are possible, unless you are talking about the spirit of those two things?