Judges: Trump Violates First Amendment When It Blocks Critics On Twitter

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that President Donald Trump's habit of blocking Twitter users with whom he disagreed violated the first amendment.

A unanimous panel of US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals judges confirmed Tuesday the district court's decision that the president had prolifically used Twitter on Twitter for official purposes, which means that blocking users constitutes discrimination based on their views.

History continues below

The case was brought against Trump, his social media guru, Dan Scavino, and former White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, by a group of Twitter users who claimed to have been blocked by the President, represented by lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

In the 29-page decision, US Circuit Court Judge Barrington rejected the government's arguments that Trump's account, @realDonaldTrump, was the kind of "completely private social media account" not subject to the First Amendment, noting that the White House itself had the President's account is official and Trump regularly uses it to announce major policy and personnel changes.

Tuesday's decision did not give a broader judgment on the use of social media by officials on an "entirely private social media account", nor on the question of whether private companies were bound by the First Amendment when they controlled their platforms – legally unmapped and contentious What judges noted is a "relatively new type of social media platform for conducting official activities and interacting with the public."

"We conclude that the proof of the official nature of the account is overwhelming," wrote Parker for the three-judge panel. "We also conclude that once the President has chosen a platform and opened his interactive space to millions of users and participants, he can not selectively exclude those he shares the point with." of view. "

Trump's challengers applauded Tuesday's decision, which upheld a decision in May 2018 in the southern district of New York.

"The social media accounts of public officials are now part of the most important forums for public policy discussion," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute, 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 isolated from the criticism of their constituents."

Parker, nominated by President George W. Bush, also pointed out that the National Archives and Archives Administration felt that Trump's Twitter account was an official account, notifying the White House that his tweets were " official documents that must be preserved under the Presidential Archives Act ". . "

The government argued that even if Trump's critics did not have access to his tweets or access to his tweets, the complainants could have used several workarounds, including disconnecting their account or creating new accounts.

But the court ruled that this would be an unfair burden for plaintiffs and added that tweets themselves are not the only features of the site protected by the First Amendment.

"A blocked account can not view, respond to, tweet or retweet the president's tweets. Reply, retweet and love are all expressive behaviors that prevent blocking, "Parker said.

Since he took office, he writes, Trump has used "his regular" Twitter account "as an important governance and leadership awareness tool" and called for proof that Trump's account and its "interactive functions" are subject to the "overwhelming" First Amendment. "

"Because the president, as we have seen, acts in an official capacity when sending tweets, we conclude that he acts in the same way when he blocks those who do not." do not agree with him, "he added.

As a result, Trump "excluded individual claimants from government-controlled property when he used the account lockout feature to exclude underprivileged voices," the judges said.

The government also claimed that the complainants were not allowed to respond to the president's tweets, as per the first amendment, according to an argument made by Parker.

"Although he is certainly not obliged to listen, once he has opened the interactive features of his account to the general public, he no longer has the right to censor users." selected because they express points of view with which he does not agree, "he wrote.

Parker concluded Tuesday's decision by praising the importance of the first amendment.

"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 topics of public interest is more speech, not less," did he declare.