Judge Ruling Donald Trump Can’t Block Twitter Critic Allows Cyberharrassment

Donald TrumpDonald Trump

(Last Updated On: December 29, 2018)

In the case of the “Trump Ruling,” where a Federal judge ruled that could not block followers on (and presumably other social media platforms), the unpopularity of President is so great, that a case which normally would have went in favor of the defendant, went the way of the plaintiff, and in so doing, provided even more damage to cyberharrassment laws filed by state legislatures. This blog and vlog post is not intended to lay out in detail the legal cases that support this author’s argument, but to give a view that any non-lawyer can understand, and hopefully support.

There are people who establish accounts on social media and Internet platforms, or even whole wesbites, purely for the purpose of causing emotional harm to someone, or even suggesting physical harm to that person.

This has given rise to a number of digital devices, also called coding, that serve to disallow such actions, wherever possible. YouTube has such a system, and due in part to my years of lobbying to stop being called a racial slur by trolls.

In the case of , we, you and I, can elect to block someone if we feel they are harrassing us in some way.

Indeed, ’s process is such that if I determine something is acting in a way that causes me emotional harm, I can file a report – the automatic default in the process ’s engineers have designed is to block the offending person. This is the system Presidetn Trump and his White House employees used in blocking those would sought legal relieft to make him and his staff unblock them.

In that case, the decision, what’s called a “,” holds that the plaintiff’s right to free speech “trumps” the President’s right to block his or her tweets on . But what the decision does not consider is the room that even what would seem to be the cases most defending “free speech” give to examples where are being, in point of discovered fact, the targets of intent to cause malace. Even in those instances, decisions leading to rulings always take into account the need for protection against intent to do malace.

I propose that a simple evaluation of how the Twitterverse looks at a series of tweets, as well as the reaction of the person targeted, should be the determining factor in whether an applied block was legal, and with more weight given to the person targeted. My statement points to a legal problem that must be resolved. For example, the 1974 case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. gives states wide latitude in determining the degree to which malace was intended in a written account. The trouble is, Gertz established a high bar for determing what a public official or public figure is, and was argued at a time before the Internet, and the establishment of the legal term of the “limited purpose public figure”.

The “limited purpose public figure” is not a household name, but becomes famous due to a particular issue, like in the Oakland BBQ Incident. Her existence and public opinion were communicated via social media, first. The public has rendered a decision, but even then, there’s no case that fully, beyond a shadow of a doubt, defends anyone’s right to baasically ask her to submit to public views she may not want to here. Free speech is worth defending, but not to the point of deliberately causing harm to the person targeted – that person, whether we like it or not, is entitled to the same constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit oif happinesss.

It’s for that reason, I believe the Trump Decision is wrong, and would lose on appeal.

And I’m a Democrat.

Stay tuned.

About the Author

Zennie Abraham
Zennie Abraham is the CEO of Zennie62Media

Oakland News Now Recent Blog Posts