Quote:Do you blame the entirety of the Police Force when one of them kills someone?
I do not. Police do not have a manifesto that condones violence.
Huh.. Trump said something on twitter. Neat.
It won't be and we shouldn't.
trump says a lot of stupid **** on twitter...
you cool with that?
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump
On July 11, 2017, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, as well as various political writers and professors, filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued President Donald J. Trump, White House Press Secretary Sean M. Spicer, and other agents of the executive branch through a Bivens claim alleging First Amendment violations. The plaintiffs argued that President Trump’s Twitter account was a public forum and alleged that by blocking Twitter users who had criticized President Trump or his policies, the defendants had unconstitutionally limited those users’ right to free speech. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the ACLU, sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.
On October 13, 2017, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, that the plaintiffs could not establish a state action, and that blocking the individual plaintiffs did violate the public forum doctrine.
On November 3, 2017, the plaintiffs responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the @realDonaldTrump account is a designated public forum and that blocking the individual plaintiffs was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
On May 23, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part both motions for summary judgment. Judge Buchwald concluded that the court did have jurisdiction over this matter but found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Hope Hicks. Thus, the two were dismissed as defendants. Next, the Court found that the type of speech the plaintiffs sought to engage in was protected by the First Amendment and that the @realDonaldTrump account was susceptible to analysis under the public forum doctrine. Lastly, Judge Buchwald concluded that the viewpoint-based exclusion, or blocking, of a Twitter user from the account was proscribed by the First Amendment and could not be justified by the President’s personal interests. 302 F. Supp. 3d 541.
On June 4, 2018, the defendants appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A panel of Circuit Judges Barrington D. Parker, Peter W. Hall, and Christoper F. Droney upheld the district court's ruling in a July 9, 2019 opinion. They found that the President's Twitter account was not a private platform and produced government speech as part of a public forum. Under this classification, discrimination based on viewpoint was not permissible, and blocking the Twitter users amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The panel added that "workarounds" such as logging out of Twitter to see the President's tweets without the ability to comment placed an unfair burden on expression, too. As such, the President was no longer allowed to block Twitter users from the @RealDonaldTrump account. 928 F.3d 226.
The defendants applied for a rehearing en banc after this opinion was filed, but Judge Parker denied their motion on March 23, 2020, reiterating the positions held in the previous opinion. Circuit Judges Michael Park and Richard Sullivan dissented in order denying the motion, questioning the broadening of the scope of public forum doctrine to include twitter accounts. They also contested the decision that a government official using Twitter amounted to government speech. 953 F.3d 216.
The plaintiffs filed a motion on April 9, 2020 asking Judge Buchwald to set a deadline for a motion to collect attorney fees for 30 days after appeals expire. Judge Buchwald granted the motion the following day. No motion has been filed as of June 23, 2020.
On June 4, 2018, the defendants appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A panel of Circuit Judges Barrington D. Parker, Peter W. Hall, and Christoper F. Droney upheld the district court's ruling in a July 9, 2019 opinion. They found that the President's Twitter account was not a private platform and produced government speech as part of a public forum.