The Court of Appeal upholds the decision that Trump can not block criticism on Twitter: NPR

A federal court in Manhattan said that President Trump could not block critics of his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional discrimination from the point of view".

In a 29-page decision on Tuesday, a panel of three judges from the second US federal court of appeal unanimously upheld the decision of a lower court that had found that Trump had violated the first amendment by blocking some Twitter users because he used his Twitter account "to conduct official activities and interact with the public". By preventing critics from accessing his stream, the president prevents them from participating in what the judges have described as a public forum.

"[The] The first amendment does not authorize a public official who uses a social network account for all kinds of official purposes to exclude people from an otherwise open online dialogue because he has expressed points with whom the agent opposes, "wrote the judges.

The case arose out of a lawsuit brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia University on behalf of seven people who were @realDonaldTrump after posting answers criticizing the president and his policies. This meant that users could not see the president's tweets, reply directly to them, or use the account's web page to view comment feeds associated with Trump's tweets.

"Social media accounts of public servants are now among the most important forums for discussing government policy," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute, who pleaded the case in front of the panel's second circuit in March, in a statement.

"This decision will ensure that people are not excluded from these forums simply because of their views and that public officials are not immune from criticism from their constituents," Jaffer said. "This decision will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are of increasing importance to our democracy."

Several of the complainants celebrated the legal victory on Twitter.

"We won on appeal", Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza wrote.

Buckwalter-Poza, a writer and legal analyst in Washington, DC, said that she had been banned from the president's thread after a comment she had published on Russia's participation in the company. The election had been retweeted by thousands of people.

"Take us to the Supreme Court if you dare @realDonaldTrump" wrote the plaintiff Eugene Gu, California surgeon and scientist.

Complainant Holly Figueroa, a Grammy-nominated composer and one of the national organizers of the March for Truth movement, wrote in a June 2017 article to The Washington Post that she had "accumulated a group of very vocal subscribers on Twitter who encourage me when I watch the president". But she says she was stuck in May 2017 after a tweet in which she called Trump "fucking idiot".

"The founding fathers had not planned for Twitter, but they certainly provided a framework for them to make sure that we will always be able to talk to people who claim to represent us," Figueroa wrote.

The government had argued that Trump had acted as a private Twitter user when he had blocked people on the social media platform, "because the feature is available to all users". But the panel of judges said that the "founders' argument against uncontested evidence" that Trump's account is "one of the main ways the White House conducts its official activities."

Trump often uses this platform to announce new policies, legislative changes, recruitments and staff revocations and diplomatic issues.

The court also noted that White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in 2017 that Trump's tweets should be considered "official statements of the President of the United States."

"By settling this appeal, we remind litigants and the public that if the first amendment means anything, it means that the best response to an adverse speech on matters of public interest is more a speech, not less," wrote the judges.

Trump did not tweet about the decision, but Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement to NPR: "We are disappointed with the court's decision and are exploring the upcoming possible steps ".