First Amendment and Trump's Twitter account

[ex-khobar Andy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... locks.html

Now that Spicey has told us that his tweets are 'official statements' Trump has waded into First Amendment (freedom of speech) trouble by blocking Twitter users who are critical of him. This could be fun.

[Sue U]

Oh, this will be very interesting. All kinds of First Amendment issues raised here concerning the nature, use and control of a "forum," if that's even what a Twitter account is; the evolving roles of social media certainly blur what used to be identifiable boundaries in the physical world. But regardless of the niceties of legal theory, the most troubling issue to me is the Trump Administration's silencing of dissent based solely on the political content of the views expressed; this is naked censorship of opposing points of view, particularly where Trump seems to have no problem soliciting and promoting any and all public comment supportive of his position. Even if his Twitter account is deemed a private medium totally within his control for the expression of his views alone, it certainly shows the type of thin-skinned, ego-driven, dictatorial person he is. As if any further proof were really necessary, but some people seem to like those qualities in a President, I guess.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Could it be a private medium if he, through his spokesperson who tells us nothing unless he has personally discussed it with the President, deems it 'official statement'?

Edited to correct a typo.

[Sue U]

Yes, it could still be "private" for purposes of of First Amendment forum analysis even though the message is for public consumption. For example, if a private university allows its facilities to be used for a public address by the President, it doesn't then have to turn the podium over to everyone who wants to respond. If a cable TV station allows the President to deliver a message over its service, that doesn't mean the broadcaster has to allow the public to comment over its service as well. You get the idea. The forum question centers on whether the government (or here, someone acting in his capacity as an elected official) has made a "space" generally available for public speech; if it has, then it cannot restrict the speech offered in that space on the basis of its content.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fascinating.

[BoSoxGal]

I wish the owners of Twitter would do their patriotic duty and ban the Cheeto from having an account while he remains in office.

[Lord Jim]

I wish the owners of Twitter would do their patriotic duty and ban the Cheeto from having an account while he remains in office.

Oh no, no, no.....

Trump's tweets are helping to sink him; I say keep 'em coming...

[BoSoxGal]

The GOP isn't going to do anything to 'sink' Trump - surely you've recognized that by now?

If the Democrats don't win back the House, we are doomed to this nightmare for the full 4 years. Meanwhile he does damage to this country's credibility on the world stage that will take decades to overcome.

[Big RR]

Oh, most of them will desert him in a heartbeat if they think it's in their interest, but that will require a lot more pressure on them. After all, Trump's not winning any friends, and, just like with Nixon, they could well turn their backs on him if they perceive it's in their interest.

That being said, voting out a lot of the republican incumbents in the midterm election could ramp up the pressure.