General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederal Court: Public Officials Cannot Block Social Media Users Because of Their Criticism
A first step for We The People
July 28 2017 2:07 PM
Federal Court: Public Officials Cannot Block Social Media Users Because of Their Criticism
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/28/federal_court_rules_public_officials_cannot_block_social_media_users.html
By Mark Joseph Stern
President-Trump-Hosts-Ceremony-Recognizing-First-Responders-In-The-June-14-Congressional-Baseball-Shooting
The ruling has clear implications for Donald Trump, who sometimes blocks his critics on Twitter.
Getty Images
That question has hung over the White House ever since Donald Trump assumed the presidency and continued to block users on Twitter. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has sued the president on behalf of blocked users, spurring a lively academic debate on the topic. But Trump isnt the only politician who has blocked people on social media. This week, a federal court weighed in on the question in a case with obvious parallels to Trumps. It determined that the First Amendments Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views.
Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors involved the chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Phyllis J. Randall. In her capacity as a government official, Randall runs a Facebook page to keep in touch with her constituents. In one post to the .....................................
In response to Randalls claim that Davidson retained the ability to express his views elsewhere, Cacheris cited the Supreme Courts recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, in which the court asserted that social media may now be the most important modern forum for the exchange of views.
............................
Cacheris ruling seems quite right to me, especially in light of Packingham, which explicitly noted that citizens can use social media to petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner. The decisions reasoning can also be applied neatly to Trumps practice of blocking Twitter users with whom he disagrees. When Trump blocks Twitter users, they can still see his tweetsby, for instance, viewing them in an incognito window. But they cannot engage directly with his tweets, at least not without resorting to an intricate and unreliable workaround. (Knight mentions a third-party application that can mitigate the implications of the block, but it is burdensome and seems to rely on a temporary glitch in Twitters interface.) This inability to respond to Trump may seem to present only a minor burden on speech. But it poses a real First Amendment problem nonetheless, inflicting a potentially unconstitutional burden on protected political speech.
Theres just one lingering issue with this comparison: It isnt clear whether Trump intends his personal Twitter page to function as a public forum the way Randall did. (Trump has a presidential account, @POTUS, from which he does not block usersbut he doesnt use it for interesting communications.) Public officials have more latitude to censor expression in personal, private forums than they do in forums that they use to speak in their official capacity. Trumps lawyers will almost certainly argue that his personal Twitter feed is a private forum, not a government project.
But that argument will likely fail. As Trumps recent tweets banning transgender military service demonstrate, the president uses Twitter not just to convey official policy but also for lawmaking. This habit would seem to turn his feed into a quintessential public forum. And so, under the First Amendment, he lacks the power to block those users who tweet their discontent at @realDonaldTrump.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)because he doesn't care about the law. Will Twitter prevent him from blocking?
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with more and more being filed against officials across the country.
NY Mag:
The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards, the judge stated in his ruling. Cacheris did emphasize that his ruling should not prohibit officials from moderating comments to protect against harassment.
Davison was only banned for 12 hours, and Randall faces no penalties. Still, the ruling is one of the first in a growing, thorny legal issue surrounding social media that has already reached the White house.