Love Trump or hate him, this ruling is stupid. Below are a couple of summaries of the decision of a Federal Judge (appointed by Bill Clinton, of course) prohibiting Trump from blocking Twitter users on the basis that it violates their First Amendment rights.
(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-23/trump-no-longer-allowed-ban-twitter-users-judge-rules)
(http://thehill.com/regulation/389021-judge-rules-trump-cant-block-users-on-twitter)
I have not had a chance to read the full 75 page decision but the rationale appears to be:
- Blocking someone on Twitter violates his/her freedom of speech; and
- Blocking someone on Twitter also is unconstitutional because Trump uses Twitter as a public forum.
O...k...
Let's take a quick look at the First Amendment:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Everyone understands that, right? There really is no ambiguity in the language. So let's break it down:
- The first part is not applicable as this case has nothing to do with religion;
- Trump is not abridging an individual's freedom of speech (or the press) by blocking someone on Twitter. It is not impossible to communicate with Trump because he blocks someone on Twitter. Practically, it is impossible for the average citizen to communicate with Trump because he is the President. Twitter is actually a way that makes it easier to communicate with government but it is not a constitutional right to demand a certain type of communication.
- The judge suggests that Trump should just be able to ignore the Twitter harassers and that this would be a way of avoiding a 1A violation. Fair point, I guess. But how does blocking greatly differ from ignoring in any material way? Is the First Amendment actually meant to protect someone's right to make an obnoxious reply to someone else's Tweet? I'm pretty sure the Framers had something else in mind. By this logic, if someone's preferred method of communicating with Trump is to stand beside his seat at the dinner table and scream in his ear while he tries to eat, then open the White House gates! There will be a line around the corner for this spectacle! At least he can just ignore the screaming.
- Anyone with much intelligence at all would realize that Trump has never once used Twitter entirely to the exclusion of other avenues of communication on official business. Also, people will usually see his most significant posts through news stories that appear through other accessible mediums like televisions, website and print media. It's not as if anyone is required to communicate only by Twitter.
- If you want to see someone's Tweets, in most cases, all you have to do is perform a Google search for the person's Twitter account in your browser and you can read their Tweets. One can read the President's Tweets anytime without being logged into Twitter. I just double checked on a computer where I do not access Twitter and they Tweets showed up in my web search.
- Last but not least, Trump's blocking habits certainly have not stopped anyone from petitioning the government for redress of grievances. That's what just happened here! Oh the irony.
We can all imagine - without even looking - the rich level of discourse that the deranged Trump haters provide in the comments to his Tweets. Thank goodness that none of them will ever miss out on this opportunity again. At least we know Twitter will do the right thing regarding the ones that threaten his wife and children. Right, Twitter...?