According to the AP, Manhattan federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald proposed an actionable settlement between the plaintiffs and the president: what if he just mutes them instead of blocking them? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the landmark case past year on behalf of blocked users, arguing he couldn't ban critics from an account used to make official statements. Mute gives you even more control over the content you see on Twitter by letting you remove a user's content from key parts of your Twitter experience. In their brief, the group contends that Trump has made his personal Twitter account into a "digital-age public forum" by "fostering a dialogue on.official statements of government policy, responses by other Twitter users, and replies by the president to those responses".
Katharine Fallow, an attorney for the plaintiffs, indicated that her side was amenable to Buchwald's suggestion that Trump mute rather than block, though she said it "not necessarily a flawless solution". Buchwald said a settlement would likely be the best resolution to the case, as a ruling might create uncomfortable legal precedent.
"It is just not like the public forum cases, where the microphone is turned off", he said.
Both lawyers agreed to consider her suggestion. "Over time, his account has become an important source of news and information about the administration - and about the president's disposition as well". Buchwald seemed receptive to that argument, saying at one point that "it is not the case that the only person who is harmed is the blockee". They each showed us the tweets they sent that after which they noticed they could no longer see nor comment on the president's tweets, which he often uses to make major announcements.More news: Eddie Hearn analyses Deontay Wilder's victory over Luis Ortiz
"It is overwhelmingly used for official purposes", she said in the courtroom. "He can avoid hearing them by muting them".
After the hearing, Mr. Baer and his team left without taking questions. "As to the muting, I think that is an option".
He said under law the court does not have the power to force Trump to unblock his critics.Katie Fallow, an attorney for the Knight First Amendment Institute, argued that because Trump uses Twitter in an official capacity - communicating policy for example - "blocking people simply because they criticize him is viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment", the US Constitution's guarantee of free speech. She noted that muting would be "much less restrictive" of her clients' rights.