Does Donald Trump blocking certain Twitter accounts violate First Amendment?

Originally published at:

The DOJ argued that while Trump tweets in official capacity, blocking users is personal.


So if “someone” were to threaten to harm him PERSONALLY on his PERSONAL ACCOUNT, that is not threatening the POTUS?

Since it is his personal account.
I’m just asking questions.


Little cruel thrills are the icing on his hamburder. You gotta let the poor old fella have some fun now and then. His sun is setting. (set sun, set!)


I am having a hard time imagining all the beverages I am going to need to drink to piss on all these graves when this is all done


Trump has always tried to have it both ways - his statements on Twitter are official decrees, and represent official White House statements except when it turns out they’re inconvenient or illegal.

It really doesn’t matter where that’s done, even if it was posted somewhere Trump couldn’t see it - it would be treated the same way.


It’s absurdly shitty in all the ways he usually is, but I’m not sure I’m bothered on Constitutional grounds. The 1A doesn’t force officials to LISTEN to your petition for redress of grievances, and blocking doesn’t prevent anyone from reading his tweets after logging out.

If anything, I’m annoyed that he hasn’t blocked me.


interesting point I hope was brought up is there is still an “official” president #45 twitter account @POTUS. So you can’t have this both ways…if you use your “personal” twitter for official POTUS stuff you can’t block users there. I am not sure there is a corresponding POTUS tweet for every RDT tweet.

I fail to see how Nostradumbass wins this one.


The entire DOJ is now Trump’s consigliere it seems. On a side note, if we can’t get Trump on collusion we can always hope for a tax evasion conviction. That’s what it took to put Al Capone behind bars… it’s amazing how the executive branch is now indistinguishable from an organized crime syndicate.


On one hand I can see how any president would want to block certain people, the high office would attract lots of angry obsessive crackpots. Following the “shoe on the other foot” logic, I wouldn’t have a problem with Obama blocking Alex Jones for example, but if you just ignore the crackpots you don’t really have to block them– I don’t think someone with ten million followers reads everything tweeted at them anyway. In Trump’s case blocking people is just another example of his thin skin, he really isn’t adult enough to just ignore what people say on his twitter feed.


It should apply equally to everyone, if I can block, then so can he. If not, then Twitter needs to remove that feature. In the end the Trump don’t care about those who disagree with him anyway. Let it be a surprise to him in 587 days.

I don’t drink so I’m happy to be the designated driver who is pounding seltzer water so I, too, am grave pissing.

1 Like

This is not important. He should be banded from Twitter for violating standards. He’s an abusive troll. Get him off.


I agree, they can’t force him to listen, but at the same time he’s stopping them from listening to him, and they can’t RT or reply such that others see it.

You can not listen without blocking. Muting exists.

1 Like


1 Like

If the ability to block applies to everyone, then the TOS should apply to everyone too, and he wouldn’t have to worry about blocking because he’d be gone.


Shitler tRump can’t do this!


It seems there is literally no aspect of the First Amendment that Traitor Trump fails to hold in total contempt.

1 Like

Probably but, don’t expect Congress to use any of their new powers to do anything.

Use endless troll accounts. It’s the Russian way!


It seems like if it were a 1st amendment violation then it would also be one if you were talking to him and he plugged his ears.

1 Like