President Donald J. Trump can’t block Twitter users from following his personal account, a federal judge ruled.

The judge said the comment section of Trump’s personal account, @realDonaldTrump, is a public forum and that blocking users on the basis of political speech is a violation of their free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan issued the ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked by Trump after replying to his tweets.

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ’block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States,” Buchwald said. “The answer to both questions is no.”

The judge declined to issue an order forcing Trump to unblock the users, saying her ruling should be sufficient to force a change in behavior.

The case is Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 17-cv-5205, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.</s>A New York federal judge on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not block Twitter users for their political views.



US District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan said that by blocking users from his @realDonaldTrump account, the president violates their rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.</s>May 23 (Reuters) - A New York federal judge on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not block Twitter users for their political views.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan said that by blocking users from his @realDonaldTrump account, the president violates their rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution. (Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Franklin Paul)</s>NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan came in response to a lawsuit filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users.

Trump was a prolific tweeter from his @RealDonaldTrump account before becoming president and since has used it to promote his agenda, announce policy and attack critics and the investigation of possible Russian connections to his presidential campaign.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the president in the case, had no immediate comment. Twitter also did not immediately comment.

The plaintiffs have said Trump’s Twitter account creates a public forum and that the president cannot block other users simply because they criticize him in replies to his tweets.

Twitter, a social media platform, lets users post short texts, called tweets, to which other users may respond.</s>Manhattan: US President Donald Trump can’t block critics from following his Twitter account, a federal judge ruled in a decision that opens his favourite communication forum to uncensored commentary from political opponents.

In a 75-page ruling that rejects Trump’s argument that he has a First Amendment right to pick with whom he associates and not to engage with others, a Manhattan federal judge said the section of his personal account with the reply button is a public forum. Blocking users on the basis of political speech is a violation of their free-speech rights, the court said.

“This is a groundbreaking decision,” said Clay Calvert, a First Amendment expert who teaches at University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications. “It establishes that social media accounts operated by a government official—even the president of the United States—constitutes a public forum.”

While it’s not the only ruling that a public official can’t block criticism on social media, it’s the first to apply the concept to the president’s feed on @realDonaldTrump. Trump uses the Twitter account for policy and diplomatic announcements as well as to lash out at the media and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“No government official—including the president—is above the law,” wrote US district judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan.

Buchwald’s decision came in a case brought last year by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked by Trump after replying to his tweets. Among them was Rebecca Buckwalter, a writer and political consultant who was blocked in June after responding to Trump’s tweet that he would have had “ZERO chance winning WH” if he had relied on the “Fake News.”

Buckwalter had replied: “To be fair you didn’t win the WH: Russia won it for you.”

The judge said Trump couldn’t suppress such responses. Blocking detractors is more than just ignoring their comments, she said. Instead, doing so limits their “right to speak in a discrete, measurable way.”

By blocking users, Trump prevented them from speaking to others on the reply thread, not just to him, the judge said. The president has more than 52 million followers on Twitter.

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the president,” Buchwald said. “The answer to both questions is no.”

The Department of Justice said in a statement that it “respectfully” disagrees with the ruling and is considering how to proceed.

“The president’s practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end,” Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director, said in a statement.

The judge declined to order Trump to unblock users, saying her decision should be sufficient to force a change in behaviour.

Twitter, which wasn’t a party to the lawsuit, declined to comment.

“The essence of this ruling is that viewpoint discrimination is prohibited,” Calvert said. “Trump’s personal Twitter account has become a public forum and this court concluded that he cannot block those who disagree with him and only allow those who agree with him.”

Genevieve Lakier, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who helped write a friend-of-the-court brief filed by First Amendment scholars, welcomed Wednesday’s decision. The group argued that failing to recognize Trump’s Twitter feed as a public forum would “threaten critical First Amendment values.”

“I think it’s a wonderful decision but I’m sure it’s going to be appealed,” said Lakier, who noted that courts are beginning to recognize the significance of social media she compared it to the right of access to a public park. “The court says this is a designated public forum and the general presumption is everyone can enter. If that’s the case, the government doesn’t get to pick and choose who is allowed in.”

Trump isn’t the first politician to face resistance for blocking critics from social media. In July, a federal court in Virginia said the chair of a county board of supervisors had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent by blocking him from the county’s Facebook page.

In another case, four Maryland residents sued governor Larry Hogan, claiming he censored them by deleting their comments and blocking them from his Facebook page because they didn’t agree with his views. The case settled after Hogan adopted a new social media policy.

Kentucky governor Matt Bevin won an initial court round this March in a lawsuit which alleges he violated free-speech rights by blocking people from his Facebook and Twitter accounts. A federal judge denied a request for a preliminary court order that would’ve stopped the governor from blocking anyone. The judge said the governor wasn’t suppressing speech but “merely culling his Facebook and Twitter accounts to present a public image that he desires.”

The case is Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 17-cv-5205, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.</s>President Donald Trump can't block Twitter users because of their political opinions without violating the First Amendment, a New York federal judge has ruled.

Trump, along with others associated with his administration, was sued last summer by a handful of Twitter users and the Knight First Amendment Institute. They claimed the president uses Twitter as a public forum to share official information is his capacity as president and therefore was violating their right to petition the government by blocking them.

The Department of Justice, in a motion for summary judgement filed in October, challenged plaintiffs standing to sue and argued his use of the social media platform isn't regulated by the First Amendment.

In a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald found that Twitter is indeed a designated public forum and "viewpoint-based exclusion" of the plaintiffs from that forum violates the First Amendment. While this lawsuit targets Trump's behavior, Buchwald's ruling extends to all public officials — and could likely spark a wave of similar litigation against other block-happy government employees.

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," writes Buchwald. "The answer to both questions is no."

Buchwald held that the @realDonaldTrump account meets the Supreme Court's standards for a designated public forum and barring participation based on political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination and "no government official — including the President — is above the law."

More to come.</s>A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's personal Twitter account cannot block people on the basis of expressed political views.

Last year, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and a few people who were blocked on Twitter by the @realDonaldTrump account sued the Trump administration, arguing that this blocking constituted "viewpoint discrimination."

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the decision on Wednesday, ruling that the @realDonaldTrump account constituted a "public forum" for debate and expression, and thus was not allowed to block other accounts for engaging in political discourse.

"In so holding, we reject the defendants' contentions that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President's personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs," ruled Judge Buchwald.

Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said in a statement in support of the ruling that the court gave "a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform."

"The president's practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end," stated Jaffer.

The ruling doesn't mention other public officials but could have implications for them, Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute told The Washington Post.

Casey Mattox of the Charles Koch Institute posted a series of tweets in response to the ruling, noting that while the @realDonaldTrump account is technically a private account, Trump himself does not distinguish what he tweets there with what he posts on his official presidential handle.

"Govt officials are private citizens too. Trump has to be allowed to be both President and private citizen. The court acknowledges that. But unless we're going to have a strictly formal rule - the President's account is not just a personal one," wrote Mattox.

"He's doing public business on that account constantly and acknowledges as much. But as importantly to me, [White House Social Media Director and co-defendant Daniel Scavino] is a govt official whose job includes tweeting for Trump from the account. Line drawing will be critical in the future. But this is practically a govt account."

While Mattox wasn't convinced that the court made the right decision, he acknowledged that the freedom of speech issues in the case are "more complicated and nuanced than many have appreciated." He also agreed with the court that an easy solution would be for Trump to use the mute function instead of the block function, which would allow comments below Trump's tweets but not require that Trump see the comments.

Last July, the Knight Institute and a group of people blocked by Trump's account filed suit, charging that Trump was violated their First Amendment rights.

Last November, Georgetown Law School's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs,

"By opening the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed to the general public, utilizing Twitter's speech-enhancing features, and engaging in a robust back-and-forth with commenters, defendants have demonstrated their intent to designate the feed as a public forum," read the brief.

"Defendants therefore violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by blocking them from following and replying to @realDonaldTrump because of their criticism of the President and his policies."

For their part, the administration argued in a brief filed last October that the @realDonaldTrump account does not fit the definition of a public forum.

"The President uses the account for his speech, not as a forum for the private speech of others. And his decision to block certain users allows him to choose the information he consumes and the individuals with whom he interacts — expressive choices that public officials retain the right to make, even when those choices are made on the basis of viewpoint," said the government.

"The President had no role in structuring the conversations among Twitter users, let alone an intent to create a forum for private expression."</s>Turkish origin man comes forward as ex-Twitter employee who shut down Trump's account

Trump attacks wrong Theresa May on Twitter over his anti-Islam retweets

U.S. President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users from following his personal account, a Manhattan-based federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald said the ability to comment on Trump's account, @realDonaldTrump, constitutes a right of free speech protected under the First Amendment and that blocking users from the "public forum" is unconstitutional.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President's personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," she wrote in the ruling.

The lawsuit was brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven users who Trump blocked after they replied to his tweets.

The government argued that the blocked users could still read Trump's tweets, but Buchwald said that preventing those users from responding to a public official's statements unjustly curtailed a "real, albeit narrow, slice of speech."

Buchwald didn't issue an order forcing the president to unblock the users, saying the ruling should be enough to produce a change in behavior.

The White House has not yet issued a response to the ruling.</s>President Donald Trump can't block Twitter users critical of his policies from following him on the social network, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Seven Twitter users sued Trump in July after the president blocked them for criticizing or mocking him on the social network. The group argued the practice violates the First Amendment.

US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed with the seven, ruling that a public official may not block people from his or her Twitter account in response to the political views the people have expressed, even if that official is the president of the United States.

"We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the 'interactive space' where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President's tweets -- are properly analyzed under the 'public forum' doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment," the judge wrote in her ruling.

"In so holding, we reject the defendants' contentions that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President's personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs."

Lawyers for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued the president last year on behalf of the seven blocked users, arguing the action "imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their participation in a designated public forum" and demanding that access to Trump's tweets be reinstated.

The case raised First Amendment issues related to the president's use of Twitter to make prolific and often controversial statements about public policy. The blockages suppress free speech by limiting users' ability to view his tweets and comment on them, the group said in a previous letter seeking to be reinstated as followers of Trump on Twitter.

One of the users blocked by Trump, according to the letter, was Holly O'Reilly, whose @AynRandPaulRand account was blocked in May 2017 after posting a GIF of Pope Francis glancing at Trump with a troubled expression, above which she wrote, "This is pretty much how the whole world sees you."

The letter says that while Trump might have been offended by the post, and others critical of the president, the tweets are a protected form of free speech, and the users shouldn't be punished by the government for their content.

The Knight Institute and the Justice Department, which represented Trump in the case, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

A request for comment sent to a White House media contact email account was returned as undeliverable.

Knight First Amendment Institute vs. Donald Trump by jonathan_skillings on Scribd

Cambridge Analytica: Everything you need to know about Facebook's data mining scandal.

iHate: CNET looks at how intolerance is taking over the internet.</s>A federal judge in New York ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump can't block people from his Twitter account, saying such action violates the First Amendment.

U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald issued the ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," the judge wrote in her ruling.

"The answer to both questions is no."
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald rules that public officials on social media should not block other users for differing political views.