Trump breached First Amendment by blocking Twitter critics rules federal judge, calling him....

[Soph0571]

...'unconstitutional'

A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan came in response to a lawsuit filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users.

Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum.

She rejected an argument made by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact.

[link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5763495/Trump-not-block-Twitter-users-political-views-judge.html|

No shit Sherlock... not going to stop him though - could this go to the Supreme Court????

[lame54]

1. Twitter should step in

[Caliman73]

2. They should, but likely won't

They are pretty cowardly.

[jberryhill]

3. And do what?

They weren't ordered to do anything.

[lame54]

4. it's their company - they decide what to do

[OldHippieChick]

5. Silly me, but I'm hoping that small victories like this will encourage others to stand up to

him and show some spine. A lot of small victories will equal a tidal wave eventually

[jberryhill]

6. "could this go to the Supreme Court????"

Well, yes, any federal district court case could go to the Supreme Court in the event that it is taken on appeal by one of the parties to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (in this instance), one of the parties then appeals the decision by the Second Circuit, and IF the Supreme Court decides to take the case (since that decision is discretionary with them).

For those who prefer to read actual court decisions, instead of mangled news articles about them, the decision is here:

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf

There are some interesting nuggets in there about how, exactly, the account is managed:


Since the President’s inauguration, the @realDonaldTrump
account has been operated with the assistance of defendant Daniel
Scavino, “the White House Social Media Director and Assistant to
the President [who] is sued in his official capacity only.” Stip.
¶ 12. “With the assistance of Mr. Scavino in certain instances,
President Trump uses @realDonaldTrump, often multiple times a day,
to announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his
Administration’s legislative agenda; to announce official
decisions; to engage with foreign political leaders; to publicize
state visits; to challenge media organizations whose coverage of
his Administration he believes to be unfair; and for other
statements, including on occasion statements unrelated to official
government business.

The other interesting nugget is toward the end, concerning what sort of order to render - whether to let it stand as a declaratory judgment, or to issue an actual injunction.

We need not, however, ultimately resolve the question of
whether injunctive relief may be awarded against the President, as
injunctive relief directed at Scavino and declaratory relief
remain available. While we find entirely unpersuasive the
Government’s parade of horribles regarding the judicial
interference in executive affairs presented by an injunction
directing the President to comply with constitutional
restrictions, we nonetheless recognize that “[a]s a matter of
comity, courts should normally direct legal process to a lower
Executive official even though the effect of the process is to
restrain or compel the President.” ...

Injunctive relief directed against Scavino
would certainly implicate fewer separation-of-powers concerns, see
Franklin, 505 U.S. at 802-03, but we also recognize that “the
strong remedy of injunction,” Rivera-Puig v. Garcia-Rosario, 983
F.2d 311, 316 (1st Cir. 1992), should be sparingly employed even
when those constitutional concerns are not present; see, e.g.,
Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 714-15 (2010) (plurality opinion).
Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be
awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline
to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to
achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we
should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and
other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative
interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” ... L.A. Cty. Bar
Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Were this court
to issue the requested declaration, we must assume that it is
substantially likely that [government officials] . . . would abide
by our authoritative determination.”), and there is simply no
reason to depart from this assumption at this time.

That's a somewhat amusing set up to what is inevitably going to follow.

[Soph0571]

7. Thank you for providing that detail n/t