President Trump has taken another 'L' in the courts as the appeals court has ruled that his Twitter blocking antics actually violate the Constitution.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling which found that the President "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

Trump came under fire as seven individuals he blocked, as well as the Knight First Amendment Institute argued that Trump's personal account an extension of his office.

The Justice Department denied that the president was "wielding the power" of the federal government when he blocked specific individuals from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump. They argued that although he may officially use his personal account - blocking them is strictly personal.

"The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide‐open, robust debate," the appeals court wrote. 

"This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen. This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less."

At the social media summit which took place at the White House on Thursday, Trump launched yet another attack on the media:

“See, I don’t think that the mainstream media is free speech either because it’s so crooked. It’s so dishonest. So to me, free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me, that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.”