In July 2017, a handful of critics of President Trump filed a lawsuit protesting his policy of blocking the most noxious douchebags. Because this is Trump, the case went to trial. And because this is Trump, the critics won.

IANAL. So what follows is a gut feeling rather than legal analysis. If Twitter is a public forum of such a magnitude that its use has a constitutional basis, then @jack is on damned thin ice whenever Twitter suspends or shadow bans an account. The same person that has the right to be heard on Donald Trump’s account can’t exercise that right if Twitter has banned them. The judge in the case advised Trump to mute his critics rather than block them. This is strange advice. The implication is that Trump’s critics have a right to use Trump’s twitter feed to publicize their own blinding intellects rather than “petition the Government for the redress of grievances.” This is novel. If we use mail as an analogy, every major agency has a blacklist of persons from whom they don’t accept mail…that is, it is returned to sender unread…or they simply toss in the trash. This is no different than Trump blocking people on Twitter. The decision would also seem to say that Twitter can’t constitutionally suspend Trump’s twitter account because then it would be abridging the right of people to tweet things at him which is bound to break many hearts on the left.

If we carry this over to other social media, then a politician with a Facebook page would not be allowed to “un-friend” people. He might not even be allowed to refuse to “friend” them because without the “friend” status they can’t communicate with him.

In fact, none of the logical implications of the decision seem defensible in any way.

I suspect this will be appealed and at some point, reason will set in and this will be seen as an act of #TheResistance, much like the travel ban rulings, and it will be treated as such. But it is a shame when the courts allow themselves to be beclowned simply to strike a blow at Trump.