10 July 2019

Politicians and anti-social media

An appeals court has ruled that the President of the United States has less rights, in at least one respect, than ordinary citizens. The court ruled that President Trump violated the First Amendment whenever he blocked Twitter users from commenting on his own account. While you or I might block a troll from defacing our own accounts with obnoxious comments, the court holds that the President's account has an official, public character -- he sometimes uses it for the first announcement of new policies, for example -- and thus should be a public forum, with no restrictions, apart from those imposed by Twitter itself, on other users' ability to comment. This is not the first such ruling against a politician, and it certainly won't be the last judicial opinion on the subject, since the Justice Department plans to appeal. I suspect that the appeals process ultimately will deliver Trump a favorable ruling, and not just because the Supreme Court has a Republican majority. While I sympathize with the thinking behind this latest ruling, I'm not sure it can withstand constitutional scrutiny. It's widely understood that the current President uses Twitter as his primary medium of direct communication with his supporters. His account is widely perceived as a propaganda platform. It's obviously feared that, by blocking critics, Trump can create an illusion of overwhelming if not unanimous agreement with his opinions and policies. Civil libertarians may think that a public official, when expressing opinions ex cathedra, as it were, has no more right to block critics from posting comments than the President has to drive peaceful protesters from the White House fence. They may insist that Twitter is actually the most direct and peaceful way for dissidents to get in the President's face. But none of this necessarily explains why the President, or any other elected official, should have less right to block people than anyone else. If that proposition depends entirely on the idea that the President's Twitter account is official, then it has to be explained what makes it so. Trump's account predates his presidency; it was not assigned to him after his election. He has issued no executive order making it "official;" nor has Congress. It may be nothing but a propaganda platform, but in this country propaganda itself has rights. The President has no more obligation to grant "equal time" on his account to his opponents than he would to reserve part of the time his campaign committee buys for advertising for opposing points of view.  In short, politicians have as much right to use their social media accounts to make themselves look popular as private citizens have. This, I suspect, is how the ultimate court will rule, but such a ruling will fall well short of silencing the President's critics. If they still want to get in Trump's face, or in the faces of his fans, there are any number of hashtags that can be employed to get their attention -- and it wouldn't surprise me if Trump himself checks all of them.

8 comments:

hobbyfan said...

The ruling should've blocked President Dippity-Doo from throwing Twantrums every time things don't go his way. Twitter is not meant for the immature, after all.

Samuel Wilson said...

If you followed Twitter you might not be so sure about that...

Anonymous said...

hobbyfan:
I'd say that you're calling the President of this nation "President Dippity-Doo" and other such nonsense pretty much paints YOU as an immature twat. You should be careful of how you judge others.

On the other hand, I find it funny - in an ironic sense - that one of the persons responsible for this ruling - AOC - is now being sued by members of her own party for doing the exact same thing she complained tRump was doing...blocking dissenters. I also find it alarming just how far current leftists are willing to go to undermine or outright silence their critics. As a former leftist, I find it disgusting what the left has become. I'll vote for tRump again and again and again if that is the only way to slap some sense back into the left, because the garbage they currently support is simply unAmerican.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon: thanks for reminding me about the AOC situation. Here's a non-partisan account of it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48948891.

However: what's the difference, when it comes to civility or the lack of it, between "President Dippity-Doo" and "tRump?"

Anonymous said...

"However: what's the difference, when it comes to civility or the lack of it, between "President Dippity-Doo" and "tRump?" "

The level of wit and intelligence. My point being that "hobbyfan" insists tRump acts like a child, while throwing names at the President that only a child would use. The typical hypocrisy of the left.

Yes, tRump is an egotistical douchebag, a blowhard and, most probably, a bit of a bully. He is still a better candidate than anyone the left has vomited up, particularly a certain Clinton, who has been involved in so many scandals, only a complete fucktard could possibly want to support that garbage for any further public office.

But meanwhile, the constant public attacks, persecution, and harassment of the President, by democrat members of the Congress can only serve to undermine the government in general and lead to the same treatment, by their opposition, of any future democrap President, creating a completely unworkable government. You may say tRump acts like a child with some veracity. How much more so can you lay that charge against the entire democrap party at this point? I've even seen petitions worded in such a way that it would seem the authors sincerely believe they can bring about an impeachment through public demand. These people have no idea how the government works, yet they criticize it constantly. They whine about tRump's "immigration policy", when the fact is, the President doesn't set federal law, but it is part of his job to ensure that federal laws are enforced, but how can he do that when the entire democrap party refuses to uphold and obey those laws themselves? They have yet to show one shred of evidence of an impeachable offense on the part of tRump, but they commit impeachable offenses every single day they aid, help, harbor, defend and allow illegal aliens to slither across our border without the government's knowledge or permission.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I spell the name "tRump" to remind myself that he is quite a bit of an ass. If you think anything coming out of the BBC is "non-partisan", you are sadly mistaken. There is, in case you haven't noticed, a very broad "liberal conspiracy" going on right now, across Europe as well as the US to inundate the West with uneducated, unemployable third-world trash. If you follow the money, you find George Soros bankrolling quite a bit of it, especially the "caravans" coming up through South America to the US as well as many of the "good samaritan" ships in the Mediterranean. Many of the middle east trash is being financed by the saudis attempting to inundate Europe with islamic garbage, presumably in the hopes of destabilizing Europe and making their wet dreams of a world-wide caliphate more of a reality.

The bottom line is, every country has a right to maintain its own majority culture, regardless of what that means to members of minority groups who are only minorities because of their own decisions.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon, you're into the Soros mania now? I'll bite, then -- what's his motive? Put it into his own words if possible. I don't see him as a good guy necessarily, but I don't really understand the reactionary obsession with him, either. He must not have too much power, if you think about it, since things haven't been going in what you'd think is his way lately in the West.

Anonymous said...

All I know is that a number of the "caravans" of illegals flooding up from all points south of the border are financed by one or more of Soro's non-profits. What his motive is? I don't know. I'm not telepathic. Perhaps he sees himself as just trying to help people find a better life. If that is so, then he is NOT thinking through the long term effects. Perhaps he's doing it simply because he hates conservatives and knows this will piss them off. I simply don't know anything, other than he is bankrolling a large part of it. Perhaps you can shoot him an email and ask him? No, I'm not a conspiracy nut. But even the most lunatic conspiracy nuts base their idiocy on at least a few facts. I am simply pushing those facts. Soros is definitely bankrolling thousands of unhappy, uneducated, unskilled foreigners to illegally enter the United States. That, in itself, puts him at odds with the US government and indicates he is quite willing to ignore laws and governments to get what he wants. That is NOT an attitude we should be complacent with.