Federal judge rules Trump can’t block users on Twitter

Federal judge rules Trump can’t block users on Twitter

No, this is not The Onion, though it comes closer than anything I’ve seen in a long time.

The Hill reports that Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled Wednesday ruled that the president cannot block people from viewing his Twitter feed based on their political views. The judge, appointed by Bill Clinton, argued that President Trump’s Twitter account is a “public forum” and that blocking people with differing opinions from replying to his tweets constitutes “viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.”

According to the 75-page opinion, Trump’s only recourse is to ignore comments he finds personally insulting:

No First Amendment harm arises when a government’s ‘challenged conduct’ is simply to ignore the [speaker], as the Supreme Court has affirmed ‘that it is free to do.’ Stated otherwise, ‘a person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others,’ or when the government  ‘amplifies’ the voice of one speaker over those of others.

The decision is a big win for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account because of opinions they expressed in reply tweets.

The ruling, which may be read in its entirety here, doesn’t go into details about the nature of the “opinions” expressed, though an examination of a random thread on the president’s Twitter account finds that some of them are pretty insulting and, in cases, downright contentious. A few examples:

I can appreciate that the president is expected simply to grin and bear it if he finds these comments painful to read, but do the same rules apply to members of Congress and the judiciary? Would the same ruling have been made by this judge had it been Barack Obama that was doing the blocking? Also, Twitter engages in some pretty spotty practices in its own monitoring of the website, such as shadowbanning. If the company is not free to shut down Trump’s account — which according to this ruling one would imagine to be the case — then why does it enjoy that prerogative with any of its users?

My last question is whether this decision will be appealed by the administration.

Stay tuned.

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using either the Spot.IM commenting system or the Facebook commenting system. If Spot.IM is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.

Ben Bowles

Ben Bowles

Ben Bowles is a freelance writer and regular contributor to "Liberty Unyielding."


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.