Trump 'BLOCKS' Jimmy Kimmel Live writer on Twitter after she 'hurt his feelings'

[workinclasszero]

Trump 'BLOCKS' Jimmy Kimmel Live writer on Twitter after she 'hurt his feelings'
Bess Kalb, a Jimmy Kimmel Live writer, says she was blocked by Trump Sunday
It came after Kalb responded to one of Trump's tweets about health care
She later said it was 'mortifying, yet unsurprising' and called Trump a 'Snowflake'
Kalb has regularly replied to Trump's tweets with jokes in the last several months
By Kelly Mclaughlin For Mailonline
Published: 08:33 EDT, 29 May 2017 | Updated: 09:52 EDT, 29 May 2017

A comedy writer claims that President Donald Trump blocked her on Twitter after she made a joke about his tweets about health care.

Bess Kalb, an Emmy-nominated Jimmy Kimmel Live writer, has regularly replied to Trump's tweets with jokes over the last several months, but it appears the president thinks she's taken it too far.

'OH. MY. EFFING. GOD. The president of the United States just blocked me on Twitter because I hurt his feelings. #MAGA,' she wrote on Twitter, attaching an image of Trump's blocked page.

She later added in a follow up, saying: 'From now on, there is only one Snowflake.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4552130/Trump-BLOCKS-Kimmel-writer-hurt-feelings.html

[SunSeeker]

1. Isn't it a violation of the 1st Am for the President to block someone just for disagreeing?

I realize private individuals are not required to comply with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, but Trump is no longer a private individual, especially when he tweets on taxpayers' time from the White House on matters of national interest. And since he refuses to use the official presidential Twitter account and instead continues to use his personal Twitter account, his personal Twitter account has taken the place of the presidential Twitter account and has become a public forum. As a public forum run by a government officer, it must respect First Amendment rights.

[Beartracks]

2. Nah, don't think so.

He's a thin-skinned buffoon, but he hasn't done anything that prevents her from speaking out. I think what he did is in really bad form and is, frankly, pathetic.

=========

[SunSeeker]

5. Blocking prevents her from speaking out in that forum.

There are lots of cases that have found 1st Am violations where a person is censored or blocked by a governmental entity from a public forum.

[RhodeIslandOne]

11. It's not really a public forum

It's run by a private company that has it's own Terms of Service.

[SunSeeker]

19. The platform is private, but Trump is "running" or managing his account.

He, not Twitter Corporation, is the one making it a public forum and then choosing to block people he disagrees with.

If a president rents a private auditorium for a town hall and then only lets right wing republicans come to the microphone, wouldn't that be a violation of the excluded constituents' 1st Am rights?

[Ms. Toad]

20. He's not blocking her speech at all.

Essentially he's sticking his fingers in his ears and going, "la-la-la - I can't hear you." (Any tweet in which she tags him won't show up in his timeline.)

But just because he puts on his own blinders prevent her from speaking. Everyone else still sees her replies to him (although there will be an extra step required to reply, since she can't reply directly). It merely protectes his tender little eyes from having to read her commentary.

(It also prevents his speech from being automatically gathered in the blocked person's timeline - but there are other ways to gather his speech.)

Not to mention that she can easily create a second account and reply directly to him from that second account.

[SunSeeker]

24. How can we still see blocked tweets in his timeline?

Just the fact that he punishes tweets he disagrees with by forcing people to take extra steps to post or others to find them, if they find them at all, is a violation of the 1st Am. The speakers at a town hall should not be treated differently simply based on the content of their speech.

Why should someone be forced to create a second, fake account and/or resort to subterfuge like some sort of troll just to say that which others whose speech Trump agrees with can readily say?

[Ms. Toad]

30. They aren't in his timeline

She is sending them out. They are invisible to him, not to anyone else. Just like when you block someone on DU. You aren't stopping them from speaking - you're just putting in earplugs. Free speech does not force a anyone to listen to you - it just gives you the right to speak.

Free speech does not guarantee you a conversation, either. You can say anything you want to everyone but Trump without using the reply function. Just send a tweet. If you want people to know you're responding to the idiot, just include his Twitter handle. It is impossible for Trump to restrict your ability to use Twitter to speak to the rest of the world. All he is doing by blocking her is restricting his ability to listen.

You are confusing the right to speak with the (non-existent) right to be heard by, or carry on a conversation with, a specific individual.

[SunSeeker]

32. If you are blocked, people you cannot see your replies to his tweets.

As you note up the thread, there are ways around that, but they require extra steps, creating fake persona accounts, etc. And as I responded to you, this impediment to Twitter users he disagrees with, by forcing them to take extra steps to post or making it harder for others to see their posts, if they find them at all, is a violation of the First Amendment

Trump's Twitter account is like a presidential town hall. That is how he uses it. He tweets on taxpayer's time, announcing what he is doing as President. He is tweeting in his capacity as President, not a private person. Since he voluntarily chose to use that platform for this governmental purpose, then he must conduct himself in accordance with the US Constitution. If he is going to let people reply to his tweets, all people replying must have the same opportunity. People should be able to have equal access to his town hall microphone, i.e. replying to his tweets. I think everyone agrees that constituent speakers at a politician's town hall can not be treated differently simply based on the content of their speech. Why should people replying to Trump's Tweets not have those same protections?

Why should someone be forced to create a second, fake account and/or resort to subterfuge like some sort of troll just to say that which others whose speech Trump agrees with can readily say?

Trump blocking Twitter users makers it appear to other Twitter users looking at the replies to Trump's tweets as if those blocked users are not voicing any objection. That is not like the ignore feature on DU. By blocking people, Trump makes it falsely appear that a smaller percentage of people oppose him than actually do. That subverts our democracy and is one of the reasons we have a First Amendment.

I'm not confusing the right to speak with the right to be heard. I know you can't make anyone listen to you, least of all Shitler. But you do have First Amendment protections against your speech being restricted by a governmental entity, i.e. the President, based solely on the content of your speech. I understand he is not blocking you from using Twitter with the rest of the world, but he is blocking you from his Twitter town hall, while others he agrees with are allowed to directly reply to his tweets.

[bluecollar2]

21. No

[SunSeeker]

25. Why?

Do you have some legal authority for your position?

[bluecollar2]

28. It's a matter of understanding the first amendment

1) It prevents government from.restricting free speech through the use of government edict....
) Twitter is a private commercial enterprise. The use of twitter is based upon a contract of use between an individual and a commercial enterprise. The terms of use are between those two parties.
3) One of the terms of use is that twoscoops gets to decide who gets access to his account.

[SunSeeker]

29. I understand the First Amendment.

We need to and can adapt the First Amendment to cover how we speak and petition our government for a redress of grievances in the 21st Century. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is to be read broadly, as the Supreme Court has said, not in a "crabbed" or narrow way.

Twoscoops is using Twitter as his presidential town hall microphone.

As I analogized in another post in this subthread, if Trump rented a private auditorium for a public town hall event, it would not matter that it was a private venue. It was being used for a public purpose. Trump is the government and what Trump says is government edict. If Trump says only Republicans can come to the microphone, would not that be a violation of the First Amendment, even if it were not a violation of Trump's rental agreement for the auditorium?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. It's also his personal account, not the PotUS account.

Your personal account is kind of purchased for the price of giving Twitter and its associates (just about every major company) information about who you follow and word clouds of what you tweet, etc. So in a sense, your account is your private space you have paid for.

[SunSeeker]

18. Shitler is on it on OUR time, hence those are our tweets. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Wrong.

You pay a pittance for his salary. He is entitled to free time. He can play golf in his free time and he does. He can tweet in his free time and does.

The fact that he doesn't work very hard does not mean that you own his twitter account.

[SunSeeker]

23. It doesn't matter how much we pay him. It is his position, not pay, that is determinative.

He is speaking as our President in those tweets. If he is going to use Twitter as his Presidential town hall microphone, then he must comply with all the rules that go with it. In other words, he must comply with the US Constitution.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Getting into a public spat with a comedy writer

Trump is totally unarmed - this oughta be good.

Smooth move, Donald.

[workinclasszero]

4. What a special snowflake huh?

Donny needs a safe space.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. I wonder what the trigger word was. Hands? Caterpillars? Mangos? Putin? Resign? Minority? Alzheimer?

[Initech]

6. Who's the snowflake again?

[LW1977]

7. Poor orange snowflake

[calimary]

8. Awwww, did that mean ol' comedy writer

hurt his widdle fee-fees?

[liberaltrucker]

9. He's obviously never read mine!

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Does Trump have a sense of humor?

Was he laughing in the "grab 'em by the p[..]y" video on the bus?
I saw it as more braggish sneer than an attempted joke.
But seriously, does he laugh?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. He laughs at the jokes his Russian handler Lavrob makes in the Oval Office. Photos show him. . nt

[Beartracks]

17. He laughs on his way to the bank. And he probably laughs at Trump voters. n/t

[TheDebbieDee]

12. Him widdle feewings got huuuurt? The $hit-throwin orange baboon got him feewings hurt?

Awwwwww.

[TeamPooka]

13. My goal in life as of right now is to be blocked by Trump on Twitter too.

[irisblue]

27. Me too. Thanks for the goal sharing Polka!

[onecaliberal]

26. He blocked me before the election. I trolled his ass hardcore

[lady lib]

31. Not just her. He, or whoever has his phone, has been

on a roll blocking people this weekend. I've seen a lot of Tweets about it.

[yuiyoshida]

33. TWITTER FOLLOWERS!!

lets follow @bessbell on Twitter!

Link to tweet