When politicians block people on Twitter does it violate the first amendment?

[Jonny Appleseed]

Last edited Mon Apr 10, 2017, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: Some of you don't seem to understand how Twitter works, or just aren't reading the post, but blocking someone on Twitter makes it so the person you block cannot SEE your posts. Making it harder for a blocked citizen to gain access to the representatives public statements.

Tweets have become all but official press releases/public statements at this point. So does choosing who gets to view those statements constitute a violation of a person's right to express themselves? When a politician blocks somebody it is usually a response to that somebody offering a dissenting opinion, a view contrary to their own. So as the politician in question grows and grows their block list it effectively becomes a selection of who can and can't view information pertinent to the United States Government based on views, beliefs, and ideologies. Choosing who can and can't receive public information from their government, excluding those people from aspects of the government. I suppose state officials, congresspeople and senators would be able to get away with it by claiming they only want direct channels to their constituents, but I doubt federal appointees and office-holders would be able to do the same.

This is a very counter-clockwise view of the first amendment I know, many people would not immediately pick up on it, but I think it may apply nonetheless. Unless somebody can provide some kind of Supreme Court precedent that would refute my opinion (I'm sure people more scholarly will know one off the top of their heads and I'll have egg on my face).
Trump violated presidential record keeping laws by deleting Tweets, so the convergence between Twitter and federal law isn't so outlandish.

[frazzled]

1. Originalist jurists will determine that the Founding Fathers didn't provide for Twitter

Which shows you why originalism is da bunk.

[demmiblue]

2. Why can't they view it?

[Flaleftist]

6. When you block someone on Twitter, they can't see your tweets.

[demmiblue]

9. They can if they log off, no?

[Jonny Appleseed]

22. There's always a way to get around restrictions on free speech but that doesn't make them okay

[demmiblue]

34. I made no value judgement, I just illustrated the fact that you are wrong...

people can see tweets even if blocked.

[Jonny Appleseed]

35. But it's harder

Therefore it's a restriction.

[LanternWaste]

3. Are the relevant sentiments the politicians express on twitter unavailable on any other platform?

Are the relevant sentiments the politicians express on twitter unavailable on any other platform?

[Jonny Appleseed]

4. I don't see Steven King posting vines about mantaining Aryan purity

And I believe making information more difficult and inconvenient to access is still a violation. But idk. That seems to be the strategy that the TSA and airlines are employing towards Muslims to institute an unspoken unconstitutional travel ban.

[Orrex]

13. What if they are unavailable on other platforms? What if they are not?

What if they are unavailable on other platforms? What if they are not?

[Angry Dragon]

5. Blocking is censorship

[TXCritter]

7. No. They are still able to tweet and have it seen by others.

The First Amendment offers no protection for people refusing to listen. It does not exist to protect us from each other, it exists to protect people from the power of the State.

If a newspaper refuses to print your editorial, that is not an infringement of your First Amendment rights.

If Twitter shuts off your account, that is not is also not an infringement of your First Amendment rights.

If Twitter shuts off your account because some politician called and used or threatened to use the power of the State against them unless they shut off your account, that might well be an infringement against your Free Speech. (As well as some other crimes)

[Jonny Appleseed]

8. It's politicians; lit the state, doing the blocking.

It isn't refusing to listen, it's disallowing citizens to hear from "the state"'s representatives.

Idk if you know how blocking on Twitter works, but it makes it so you can't see the tweets of the person who blocks you.

[melman]

10. but

it doesn't really block you. It blocks an account. So since you can make a new one, or log out and view anything you want...


you aren't prevented from doing or seeing anything.

[Jonny Appleseed]

11. It is making information harder to access and doing it knowingly towards certain

groups of people. Imagine if congresspersons banned Muslims from their town halls. Or democrats. Or people who specifically didn't vote for them. And imagine if who those bans applied to were arbitrarily decided by the congressperson, who stands at the entrance and does a visual inspection.

I'm not 100% certain it'd hold up in court as a violation, but it certainly violates the intentions of the amendment.

Edit: actually, imagine if C-Span turned to static in areas where Trump protests occur. That's the equivalent here.

[melman]

18. What if C-Span....what? That makes no sense

But honestly, I don't think you're serious about this anyway. This thread has more than a hint of trolling to it.

[Jonny Appleseed]

21. Elaborate

[TXCritter]

38. Limiting others from hearing your voice is never a Free Speech infringement

We aren't entitled to hear everything a politician utters.

[Jonny Appleseed]

41. When it's deliberately public except for certain chosen minorities, I believe it is

[TXCritter]

44. No it's not. It never is.

It may be a violation of some other law. For example, it may be a violate of the Equal Protection clause if a representative redlines a precinct and refuses to send a district newsletter to that district.

But it's not a Free Speech violation. It is never a violation the First Amendment to withhold speech from anyone by anyone at any time.

The First Amendment exists to protect the speech of citizens not force the speech of government.

[Jonny Appleseed]

52. The speech withheld hinges on the speech delivered.

Utilize free speech -> get punished for that utilization by being restricted access to public information.

[Blue_Adept]

12. Things like this just make me want to give up DU entirely

I know, silly posts and less than critical thinking has been around for ages, but this kind of stuff just lowers an already lowered discourse.

Imagine saying it on a street corner or to friends and imagine the reactions.

"my representative isn't reading my tweets!!"

[Jonny Appleseed]

14. That's not what the post says at all. The complete opposite actually.

And you talk about less than critical thinking...

[tallahasseedem]

27. +1

It's getting ridiculous. This is definitely not the DU of the past.

[Orrex]

15. When Pat Toomey doesn't return my calls, is he violating the first amendment?

Specifically, if I can't pay him the $60K that he charges people for his attention, then is he in violation?

[Jonny Appleseed]

16. That's not what the post says at all.

[karynnj]

17. No - the blocked tweeters can still tweet and anyone who wants to read their tweets can

They can also READ the politicians tweets - so they do get that info.

What they are doing is preventing these people from replying to them - or tweeting to them. Given that many people use twitter to spam their own view ON THE POLITICIAN'S tweet, I have no problem with a politician or anyone blocking someone who they do not want to speak to.

The first amendment gives you the write to speak - not the right to force others to listen to them.

[Jonny Appleseed]

19. "They can also READ the politicians tweets"

They can't and that's the crux of my entire argument.

[karynnj]

23. They can if they are not logged into their account

The blocking usually happens because the person tweeted something to their tweets -- often things that were abusive. Not to mention, tweets are hardly official records - though they are public. I would imagine that many politicians have the full statement related to tweeted issues on their websites.

[Jonny Appleseed]

26. Tweets are official records and see post 24

http://time.com/4723685/donald-trump-tweets-national-archives/

[Orrex]

25. But that crux isn't true

Replies have demonstrated that "blocked" twitterers can easily see the tweets by the people who've blocked them, so your crux falls apart.

Does a politician's choice to use Twitter violate the first amendment rights of those who don't (or can't) use Twitter?

[Jonny Appleseed]

28. No because they aren't being targeted specifically

Just economically, and it's not deliberate based on their ideology.

[Orrex]

30. You're not being targeted specifically, either

Your account is. Legally, factually and philosophically you are not your account, and your account is not you.

Blocking your account is not blocking you.


The crux of your argument falls apart.

[Jonny Appleseed]

37. That's sophistry

If my account issues death threats and threats of terror, I won't be held accountable?

[Orrex]

47. That question is not related to your original post

And you've asked another silly question.

If your neighbor hacks into your Twitter account and issues threats of terror, would you be held accountable for your neighbor's statements? Should you be? No, because you are not your account, not legally, factually nor philosophically.



Your attempt to dismiss this as sophistry reveals your awareness of the essential weakness of your argument.

[Jonny Appleseed]

51. Identity theft is a crime, yes?

But if the one who took your identity stopped you from receiving government information permanently, it would somehow be just?

[Orrex]

58. That question is not related to your original post

Q: Identify theft is a crime?
A: No shit.

Q: Stealing one's identity to prevent access to government information is just?
A: No. That's a nonsensical assertion that no one has actually put forth.

Also, there's nothing "permanent" about blocking your twitter account except that THAT twitter account is blocked. YOU (who, I must remind you, are NOT your twitter account) can easily access those precious, precious tweets via other accounts.

[RedWedge]

20. No.

If you log out of Twitter, you can see all public tweets.

[Jonny Appleseed]

24. Say you follow 300 elected officials

You'd need to go to each of their individual pages to receive that public information. Making free speech more difficult is the same as violating the right to it.

[Orrex]

29. That's a silly argument

If they tweet the information, it's not their responsibility to facilitate your personal, individual access to it. It's a broadcast medium, and if you're blocked then you have many other ways to access it. For that matter, they're also not obligated to make sure that your cable provider carries CSPAN.

If a politician knowingly makes a statement to a local newspaper and that paper publishes it but I can't buy that newspaper, is that a violation of my first amendment rights?

[Jonny Appleseed]

33. If the politician is an elected official and forces the newspaper's distributors to not sell

to you and those like you specifically, then yes.

[Orrex]

45. But that has nothing to do with your Twitter hypothetical

Blocking your Twitter account is nothing at all like forbidding delivery of a newspaper to you.

[Jonny Appleseed]

50. Why not?

It seems rather apt.

[Orrex]

57. Because you are not your twitter account

Frankly, you appear to be denying this straightforward and undeniable fact because, if you accept it, then you must accept that your OP falls apart entirely.

Blocking your twitter account prevents THAT twitter account from seeing the tweets in question. You can open another twitter account in less time than you've wasted on this thread.

Blocking your access to the newspaper prevents YOU from receiving the paper. You can't become someone else and thereby obtain the newspaper.

[RedWedge]

54. The right to free speech is not the right to hear other people's speech.

[Jonny Appleseed]

55. They aren't people; they're representatives of the government.

[Tanuki]

31. This is not a First Amendment issue. Re-read the First Amendment if you are in doubt.

[Jonny Appleseed]

40. Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional even though it's not a law that congress passed

[tallahasseedem]

32. No. eom.

[Kaleva]

36. You cant prove a negative

You ask others to refute your opinion but it is up to you to provide vthe proof that supports your claim.

What about the millions who don` t tweet or follow twiitter? Are our rights being violated because public information is being posted in a medium so many of us don`t use or even have access to?

[Jonny Appleseed]

39. It's a citizens right whether they choose to utilize said rights.

Just because I don't want to book a venue and assemble a rally doesn't mean it's harder for me to do so. But if my congressperson told the venue not to book me and I needed to use an alias, that would be a restriction of said rights.

[Kaleva]

43. You still havent provided evidence that your rights are being violated.

What part of the 1st Admendment applies to what you say? Your freedom of relgion, assembly, to petition and speech is not affected.

[Jonny Appleseed]

48. It depends on your definition of speech

Is it okay to be deliberately hampered from getting government information because of how you utilized your free speech?

[Lee-Lee]

42. Of course not

Some people need to go back to middle school civics.

That's like saying if a politician takes you off their email list or snail mail list it's somehow a First Amendment violation, which of course it is not.

[Jonny Appleseed]

49. That's false equivalency

An email list is not equivalent to the entire country. It's already a selective and private distribution method. Not public information.

[TXCritter]

46. Your example may violate some OTHER laws but not the First Amendment

Look to the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) or Open Records, Freedom of Information, etc.

You can't infringe your own right of Free Speech

[beachbum bob]

53. Simple answer is no as there is no right to free speech on a private

Platform..

[alarimer]

56. If everyone on Twitter blocked Donald Trump, could he still tweet?

Let's try it and see. Let him scream into the void.