Judge rules Trump blocking people on Twitter violates the Constitution!

Of all the things Trump is being sued for, this one really takes the cake:

CBS 46 – President Donald Trump can’t ban critics from his Twitter account, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, saying the First Amendment calls for more speech, rather than less, on matters of public concern.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a lower court judge who said Trump violates the Constitution when he blocks critics.

“The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide-open, robust debate,” Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel.

The debate generates a “level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen,” the court’s decision read.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” the 2nd Circuit added. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”

The Justice Department did not immediately comment.

This is stupid on steroids. Trump blocking people on Twitter has nothing to do with the First Amendment.



Blocking someone doesn’t prevent them from using their account to say whatever they want to whomever they want (unless they are blocked). It merely keeps someone out of Trump’s timeline. And we’re talking about his personal account, not this POTUS account, which he probably doesn’t use that often.

If the government owned Twitter and it was the officially sanctioned way of citizens getting in touch with government officials, then maybe this ruling might make sense. But it’s nothing of the sort and this ruling is subsequently absurd.

The three judge panel ruled this way unanimously. The main judge in the opinion, Parker, is a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, but before that was a Clinton appointee to a district court in the SDNY. The second judge, Peter W. Hall, was George W. Bush all the way from district court to the Second Circuit. And lastly, Judge Christopher F. Droney was an Obama appointee to the Second Circuit and a Clinton appointee twice before that.

The irony over this ruling is now there’s talk of a former Democrat suing AOC because she’s blocking people from her timeline as well, just like Trump:

FOX NEWS – Former Democratic New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind told Fox News on Tuesday he’s preparing to sue Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for blocking users on Twitter based on their personal viewpoints, following a federal appeals court ruling barring President Trump from doing the same.

Asked where his lawsuit would be filed and whether other plaintiffs would be involved, Hikind told Fox News in an email, “All that’s being determined at the moment.”

“Most likely we will be [the] only plaintiff, but [we will be] citing other examples,” Hikind continued. “The claim is [the] same as [the] one against Trump. She uses that account for political/policy commentary, so to shut a citizen off from her statements is a problem — as well as blocking me from petitioning her or seeking redress.”

I really think Hikind is just trying to make a point and I seriously doubt he’ll waste money on a lawsuit like this when this ruling against Trump will likely be overturned.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

104 thoughts on “Judge rules Trump blocking people on Twitter violates the Constitution!

  1. There are some different ways to look at this:
    – If Twitter is a free speech platform, does that mean that they have requirements on how they can moderate tweets? How can it be wrong for the President to take actions in his feed, but it would be okay for Twitter to do likewise? There are some tricky sub-issues at play here too:
    * For example, if AOC is held to the exact same standard, we might say “okie dokie”… but if Twitter has rigged the game and will silence her critics for her, then that creates a strange standard.
    * If Twitter is helping AOC, then Trump would need to switch to some platform that is geared to Republicans. On this new platform that silences Trump’s critics so he doesn’t run afoul of this ruling, are they making some kind of “in kind contribution” to Trump?
    – How does this relate to other venues where the President is speaking and hecklers are escorted out of the auditorium or stadium? Is the President not allowed to silence their speech?

    1. The stadium folks are at campaign rallies where different rules apply. The issue is that he’s shutting these people out of the space to reply below his tweets, which the court has held is a public forum for first amendment purposes.

      Twitter can do what it wants because it’s not the president. When the president uses the platform, his office limits ways in which he can use it.

      Your subquestions are interesting and I could think of a lot of ways it could go. It would mostly depend, I think, on whether twitter and AOC were actually coordinating.

  2. Great.
    Now, all anyone has to do who has been banned by twitter (facebook, u tube et.al.) is declare themselves a candidate for public office. Any office. By law, the techs have to carry everything they care to say.

  3. Wait, that’s not allowed but the Platform (which is acting like a Publisher) can block ads and accounts of those who they don’t politically agree with? Sweet deal for Twitter… the jerks.

  4. No one, not even the President is required to listen to people who are being rude, obnoxious, of excessively critical. Even well-behaved trolls can be kicked out of public meetings.

    In fact, this judge is establishing the beginnings of a precedent for anyone who wants to, to be able to sit in his office while he works. It’s what this “no blocking” idea leads to.

  5. No one, not even the President is required to listen to people who are being rude, obnoxious, of excessively critical. Even well-behaved trolls can be kicked out of public meetings.

    In fact, this judge is establishing the beginnings of a precedent for anyone who wants to, to be able to sit in his office while he works. It’s what this “no blocking” idea leads to.

  6. Then there is a good chance that no one can block me here ,Right.If you do I will know you do not want me to reach that FAMED plateau.

  7. The only good thing about this ruling is that it prevents The Sinister’s public officials from blocking people they don’t like. Take that, Always On Crack!

  8. I wish Trump would just quit Twitter and join gab. He use to be on gab but had to leave because he was too busy for two sites.

  9. Here’s another thing he could do – create two accounts.

    President Donald Trump and Citizen Donald Trump. Can’t block on the Preezy account, which he’ll mostly ignore but for sterile boring white house reports; and then he can go hog wild on the Citizen account.

    1. @AT This was his personal account, not the official POTUS account. That was explained in the article.

    1. Yep. Double standards.

      Not much we can do about it though. Complain about unfairness I guess, for all the good it’ll do.

  10. So then I guess everyone can sue Twitter for facilitating anyone blocking anyone? You know, because they’re essentially aiding and abetting and complicit in the commission of a crime.

    1. This just opens up the floodgates of stupid. It only makes sense if their goal is to have access to all of the President’s communications, so they can find anything to prevent him from winning re-election. I’m going to file a lawsuit for slantry’s text messages, because privacy violates my 1st amendment rights.

    2. In other news, some leftist judge somewhere ruled that the President was no longer allowed locks on his doors (house/car). Apparently, it’s a Constitutionally protected right to allow leftists to shriek and wail inside his home. He’s obligated to listen. There’s at least 1 day of judicial precedent on this.

  11. “Parker, is a George W. Bush appointee…”
    It’s a good thing to know this judge has nothing else better to do with his time than carry the water for the Bush clan.

  12. There are some different ways to look at this:
    – If Twitter is a free speech platform, does that mean that they have requirements on how they can moderate tweets? How can it be wrong for the President to take actions in his feed, but it would be okay for Twitter to do likewise? There are some tricky sub-issues at play here too:
    * For example, if AOC is held to the exact same standard, we might say “okie dokie”… but if Twitter has rigged the game and will silence her critics for her, then that creates a strange standard.
    * If Twitter is helping AOC, then Trump would need to switch to some platform that is geared to Republicans. On this new platform that silences Trump’s critics so he doesn’t run afoul of this ruling, are they making some kind of “in kind contribution” to Trump?
    – How does this relate to other venues where the President is speaking and hecklers are escorted out of the auditorium or stadium? Is the President not allowed to silence their speech?

    1. The stadium folks are at campaign rallies where different rules apply. The issue is that he’s shutting these people out of the space to reply below his tweets, which the court has held is a public forum for first amendment purposes.

      Twitter can do what it wants because it’s not the president. When the president uses the platform, his office limits ways in which he can use it.

      Your subquestions are interesting and I could think of a lot of ways it could go. It would mostly depend, I think, on whether twitter and AOC were actually coordinating.

  13. Then there is a good chance that no one can block me here ,Right.If you do I will know you do not want me to reach that FAMED plateau.

  14. Great.
    Now, all anyone has to do who has been banned by twitter (facebook, u tube et.al.) is declare themselves a candidate for public office. Any office. By law, the techs have to carry everything they care to say.

  15. Twitter shouldn’t be able to ban people but they do. I hope Congress acts soon………..but they won’t.

  16. The only good thing about this ruling is that it prevents The Sinister’s public officials from blocking people they don’t like. Take that, Always On Crack!

  17. Wait, that’s not allowed but the Platform (which is acting like a Publisher) can block ads and accounts of those who they don’t politically agree with? Sweet deal for Twitter… the jerks.

  18. If he were smart, which he’s not, he’d quit Twitter. Make the ruling moot.

    If he were to use an alternative, literally everyone – every fan, every hater, everyone in media, everyone in politics – everyone would follow him.

    But he’s not smart enough for that. Because we elected President Moron.

    1. Quitting Twitter isn’t really smart. That’s how he chooses to get his messages out and bypass the MSM.

      Quitting Twitter would be letting them win…

      1. And you didn’t even get into exactly what that alternative is and how he could block spamming haters on it without running afoul of the same ruling.

      2. Like I said, all he has to do is make his last tweet, “I have joined Gab. Follow me at @DonaldGabs – and everyone would follow him. It’d probably kill Twitter overnight.

          1. Instead of ignorantly spouting out like you usually do, you could have simply asked.

          2. AT, stop it I’m rolling on the Floor.You must have been saving that one for the perfect moment. I will save that one for my son when he gets back from vacation.

          1. “Every Black’s Killers Are Cops?”

            That one might fit a lot of your comments…..:)

    2. Seems to be doing quite well, for a moron. Especially since you guys acted like his election was going to bring about the apocalypse. Still waiting on the sky to fall.

    3. Why , you aren’t interested in what President Trump actually said ? Go figure….

        1. And that would enable him to get around this ruling and block heckling users on Gab how?

            1. Relitigate it? Hardly. If Trump moved to Gab and tried blocking users, it wouldn’t be relitigated in any meaningful way. Probably the same attorney who won this case would file a request for an injunction based upon the Twitter decision and a judge would give it to him in about five minutes.

  19. Just ignore the ruling. I am not a fan of lawlessness but this garbage is beyond stupid.

    What is next? The President can’t use pop up blockers when he goes on the web? The President can’t use spam filters on his e-mail? He can’t refuse to answer the phone at any time of the night? Some judge will be there 24/7 to make sure he answers the phone and has a discussion with any loon at any time?

    These judges can stick their rulings where the sun don’t shine.

  20. I wish Trump would just quit Twitter and join gab. He use to be on gab but had to leave because he was too busy for two sites.

  21. Here’s another thing he could do – create two accounts.

    President Donald Trump and Citizen Donald Trump. Can’t block on the Preezy account, which he’ll mostly ignore but for sterile boring white house reports; and then he can go hog wild on the Citizen account.

    1. @AT This was his personal account, not the official POTUS account. That was explained in the article.

    1. Yep. Double standards.

      Not much we can do about it though. Complain about unfairness I guess, for all the good it’ll do.

  22. So then I guess everyone can sue Twitter for facilitating anyone blocking anyone? You know, because they’re essentially aiding and abetting and complicit in the commission of a crime.

    1. This just opens up the floodgates of stupid. It only makes sense if their goal is to have access to all of the President’s communications, so they can find anything to prevent him from winning re-election. I’m going to file a lawsuit for slantry’s text messages, because privacy violates my 1st amendment rights.

    2. In other news, some leftist judge somewhere ruled that the President was no longer allowed locks on his doors (house/car). Apparently, it’s a Constitutionally protected right to allow leftists to shriek and wail inside his home. He’s obligated to listen. There’s at least 1 day of judicial precedent on this.

  23. “Parker, is a George W. Bush appointee…”
    It’s a good thing to know this judge has nothing else better to do with his time than carry the water for the Bush clan.

  24. Twitter shouldn’t be able to ban people but they do. I hope Congress acts soon………..but they won’t.

  25. If he were smart, which he’s not, he’d quit Twitter. Make the ruling moot.

    If he were to use an alternative, literally everyone – every fan, every hater, everyone in media, everyone in politics – everyone would follow him.

    But he’s not smart enough for that. Because we elected President Moron.

    1. Seems to be doing quite well, for a moron. Especially since you guys acted like his election was going to bring about the apocalypse. Still waiting on the sky to fall.

        1. And that would enable him to get around this ruling and block heckling users on Gab how?

    2. Quitting Twitter isn’t really smart. That’s how he chooses to get his messages out and bypass the MSM.

      Quitting Twitter would be letting them win…

  26. Just ignore the ruling. I am not a fan of lawlessness but this garbage is beyond stupid.

    What is next? The President can’t use pop up blockers when he goes on the web? The President can’t use spam filters on his e-mail? He can’t refuse to answer the phone at any time of the night? Some judge will be there 24/7 to make sure he answers the phone and has a discussion with any loon at any time?

    These judges can stick their rulings where the sun don’t shine.

Comments are closed.