Trump Can’t Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules

- Advertisement -

Must Read

Luka Modric recalls moment Jose Mourinho almost made Cristiano Ronaldo cry

Luka Modric has recalled how Jose Mourinho almost reduced Cristiano Ronaldo to tears when they were together at Real Madrid...

Jamie Redknapp highlights Liverpool risk over Timo Werner transfer U-turn

Jamie Redknapp said Timo Werner could make his former club Liverpool regret their decision not to sign him this summer....

Liverpool ‘monitoring’ Jadon Sancho but finances make transfer almost impossible

Liverpool are reportedly monitoring Jadon Sancho - but while the financial climate makes a move almost impossible this summer, there is...

Man Utd blow as Premier League outlines rules for players returning on loan

Premier League clubs have reportedly been told players returning from loan spells this summer will not be eligible to play when...
- Advertisement -


WASHINGTON — President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era.

Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter for to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled unanimously.

Writing for the panel, Judge Barrington D. Parker noted that the conduct of the government and its officials are subject today to a “wide-open, robust debate” that “generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.” The First Amendment prohibits an official who uses a social media account for government purposes from excluding people from an “otherwise open online dialogue” because they say things the official disagrees with, he wrote.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” Judge Parker wrote. “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.”

[Read the opinion.]

The Justice Department had no immediate response to the ruling. But Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which represented a the group of Twitter users who were blocked by Mr. Trump and filed the lawsuit, praised it. He said that public officials’ social-media accounts are among the most significant forums for the public to discuss government policy.

“The ruling will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints and that public officials don’t transform these digital spaces into echo chambers,” Mr. Jaffer said. “It will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy.”

Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has nearly 62 million followers, and he often makes policy pronouncements and drives the news of the day by tweeting. Last week, for example, Mr. Trump used Twitter to abruptly announce that the government would still seek to add a question to the 2020 census about people’s citizenship, reversing what administration officials had previously told a court.

His posts generate tens of thousands of replies, as people respond to what he has said and engage in debates with each other.

Against that backdrop, a group of Twitter users whom Mr. Trump had blocked from accessing his postings, asked the White House to be unblocked and then, when their request went unheeded, sued him. They argued that Mr. Trump’s account amounted to a public forum — a “digital town hall” — so his decision to selectively block people from participating in that forum based on views they had expressed was unconstitutional discrimination based on their viewpoints.

Mr. Trump’s legal team argued that he operated the account merely in a personal capacity, and so had the right to block whomever he wanted for any reason — including because users annoyed him by criticizing or mocking him.

The ruling upheld a May 2018 decision by a Federal District Court judge that Mr. Trump’s practice of blocking his critics from his Twitter account was unconstitutional. After that ruling, the White House unblocked the specific plaintiffs’ accounts — but not other users who were not involved in the case — while filing an appeal.





Source link

Comments

0 comments

- Advertisement -

Latest Update

itel Mobile introduces P36 and P36 Pro in first virtual product launch

Lagos; June 6, 2020 – itel Mobile, Africa’s leading consumer-centric smartphone brand, has introduced cutting edge additions to its flagship power series, itel...

Man Utd Agrees Loan Contract Extension With Ighalo

Manchester United has reached an agreement with former Super Eagles striker, Odion Ighalo for a contract extension to his current loan deal. Raidar News can...

On Sad Anniversary, Few to Mourn the D-Day Dead in Normandy

COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France (AP) — At least the dead will always be there. All too many have been, for 76 years since that fateful June...

WTO DG election: Egypt opposes Okonjo-Iweala’s nomination

Barely 24 hours after President Muhammadu Buhari announced the nomination of the former finance minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, as Nigeria’s candidate to be the...

How many times have Man Utd won the Premier League? Number of titles won by Red Devils

Manchester United are the Premier League’s most dominant team, by some margin. However after dominating most of the 1990s and first...
- Advertisement -

More Post Like This

Comments

0 comments