[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – President Trump has violated the Constitution by preventing people from following his Twitter account because they criticize him or make fun of him, a federal court of appeal said Tuesday. The decision could have broader implications on how the first amendment applies to the social media era.
Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he can not stop some Americans from reading his messages – and engaging in conversations in their responses – because he does not like their point of view, a panel of three judges in the US Court Appeals for the second circuit were unanimously judged.
Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote before the jury that the conduct of the government and its representatives is now subject to an "open and solid debate" that "generates a level of passion and intensity that the We rarely saw it. "
The First Amendment prohibits a manager who uses a social network account for government purposes to exclude people from an "otherwise open online dialogue" because he says things with which the official n & # 39; He does not agree, he wrote.
"This debate, as uncomfortable as it is unpleasant, is nevertheless a good thing," wrote Judge Parker. "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 discourse on matters of public interest is more speech, not less.
The Department of Justice did not have an immediate response to the decision. But Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, who represented a group of Twitter users blocked by Trump and who filed the lawsuit, congratulated him. He said social media accounts of public servants are among the most important forums for the public to discuss government policy.
"The decision will ensure that people are not excluded from these forums simply because of their views and that officials do not turn these digital spaces into echo rooms," Jaffer said. "This will help ensure the integrity and vitality of the digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy."
Mr. Trump's Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has nearly 62 million followers, and he often uses it to make policy statements and communicate with the public, at the heart of the day 's news. Last week, for example, Trump used Twitter to abruptly announce that the government would still seek to add a question to the 2020 citizenship citizenship census, canceling out what government officials had previously said to a court.
His messages regularly generate tens of thousands of responses, as people respond to his comments and engage in debates.
In this context, a group of Twitter users that Mr. Trump had prevented from accessing his publications, asked the White House to be released, and then, when their application was ignored, sued him.
Among the plaintiffs was Rebecca Buckwalter, a member of the Liberal Center for American Progress. His account was blocked after responding to a Mr. Trump's tweet on June 6, 2017, in which he accused various mainstream media of being "fake media" and said that he would not have won the White House s & # 's Was based on them.
Ms. Buckwalter responded"To be fair, you did not win the WH: Russia won it for you" – and she was stuck by Mr. Trump's account.
The prosecution argued that Mr. Trump's account was a public forum – a "digital public forum" – and that he had therefore decided to selectively prevent people from participating in the forum because he did not appreciate what they constituted unconstitutional discrimination based on their views.
In particular, Mr. Trump's legal team argued that he was managing the account in his personal capacity and therefore had the right to block who he wanted for whatever reason – including because users were bothering him about it. criticizing him or making fun of him.
But the court of appeal disagreed, saying he had clearly acted as a government using Twitter.
"We are not convinced," wrote Judge Parker. "We conclude that the proof of the official nature of the account is overwhelming. We also conclude that once the President has chosen a platform and opened up his interactive space to millions of users and participants, he can selectively exclude those with whom he shares his point of view. "
Judge Parker was appointed by President George W. Bush. Judges Peter Hall, nominated by Bush, and Christopher Droney, nominated by former President Barack Obama, joined him. The district court judge, whose court had already upheld the decision, was Naomi Buchwald, appointed by Clinton.
[ad_2]
Source link