Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

A federal judge prevents Trump from blocking who criticizes him on Twitter

The Magistada considers that the president's account is a public forum and that the freedom of expression is violated by silencing the contrary

- 16 reads.

A federal judge prevents Trump from blocking who criticizes him on Twitter

Twitter is much more than a social network for Donald Trump. It's his whip and his loudspeaker. From his account, he launches proclamations, advances measures, dismisses ministers and faces heads of States. Twitter is his way of doing politics. Brief, direct, devastating. All of this has been influenced by ruling of federal judge Naomi Reice Buchwald who dictates that President of United States should not block anyone in his personal account @realDonaldTrump (37,600 tweets and 52.2 million followers). For judge, that space is part of public forum and as such cannot escape First Amendment, adopted in 1791 to protect freedom of expression. "Blocking plaintiffs for ir political views is a form of discrimination," he wrote.

Under this reasoning, new York judge asks president and his team to put an end to this practice. "Since no government charge is above law and because everyone is obliged to follow law once judiciary has established what law is. We assume that President and [Daniel] Scavino [director of social networks of White House] will remedy blockade that we have considered unconstitutional, "he says.

The case arose last March when seven citizens and institutions sued Trump for blocking m. The measure prevented m from seeing or responding to messages in ir account. That is to say, it took away possibility of knowing what president expressed, but also to make public in same account his opinions about it. Plaintiffs include Knight center of Columbia University, and individuals such as Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at University of Maryland, blocked in June 2017 after answering a message from president with a text that He said: "Corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian."

Trump's lawyers claimed that president had right to decide with whom he shared his space and that analogy with First Amendment was fallacious. As an example y pointed out that, just as president does not have to stay in a public act with whom he shouts, neir on Twitter is obliged to listen to those who attack him. And that no impairment of freedom of expression is being evaded.

Clock ticking. CC: @realDonaldTrump @DanScavinohttps://t.co/cFFOebCeh1 pic.twitter.com/9Gp4tvz3Dh

— Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) May 23, 2018

In preliminary hearing, Judge Buchwald, elected to presidency of Bill Clinton, already pointed out that re was an interim solution: instead of blocking, silencing. A mechanism that would prevent President from reading critical responses but without preventing m in origin.

"A person's right to speak is not violated when government simply ignores that person while listening to ors or amplifying a voice above ors. Silencing, refore, preserves silencing ability to respond to a tweet, but blocking prevents blocked from seeing or replicating completely to tweets, " magistrate concludes. The White House and Trump have not answered yet.

Warning!

You have to login for comment. If you are not a member? Register now.

Login Sign Up