Trump Takes Fight Over Blocking Twitter Users to Supreme Court – Hollywood Reporter

[T]he President uses his account to speak to the public, not to give members of the public a forum to speak to him and among themselves, the Department of Justice argues.

Donald Trump is a prolific tweeter; so, its not entirely surprising that hes decided to take a dispute about whether or not hes free to block whomever he wants on Twitter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump was sued in 2017 by the Knight First Amendment Institute and several users who had been blocked from viewing his tweets. They claimed because the president uses the social media site as a public forum to share official information their constitutional right to petition the government was being violated.

A New York federal judge in May 2018 sided with the plaintiffs and found that Trump can't block Twitter users because of their political opinions without violating the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald held that the @realDonaldTrump account meets the Supreme Court's standards for a designated public forum; barring participation based on political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination; and "no government official including the President is above the law."

Trump appealed the decision, but lost again in the 2nd Circuit. In July 2019, a federal appellate panel affirmed the finding that blocking critics from seeing his tweets amounts to a constitutional violation: The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

On Thursday, Trump submitted a petition to the Supreme Court asking it to examine whether the First Amendment deprives a government official of his right to control his personal Twitter account by blocking third-party accounts if he uses that personal account in part to announce official actions and policies.

The presidents petition argues that he created a personal Twitter account in March 2009 and prior to his election he used it to tweet about a variety of topics, including popular culture and politics. Now, he still uses it for those reasons but also admits he has used the account to communicate with the public about official actions and policies of his administration.

He argues that his right to block people stems from his use of the site, not his elected office. The blocking capability was available to President Trump because he is a registered Twitter user, not by virtue of his public office, and is available to him on the same terms that Twitter makes that capability available to all account holders, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall in the complaint. He argues that anyone with internet access can view Trumps tweets, that if someones been blocked all they have to do is log out of Twitter, and that blocking users doesnt prevent them from criticizing him on the platform.

Even while logged into their blocked accounts, respondents may mention @realDonaldTrump in their own tweets, and may post screen-shots of @realDonaldTrump tweets with their own responses to those tweets, argues Wall. They may also view replies that others have posted in response to @realDonaldTrump tweets, and may reply to those replies. Those replies-to-replies appear in the collection of replies beneath @realDonaldTrump tweets for all to see, other than President Trump himself.

Trump disputes that his personal account has become an official government account just because he sometimes uses it to make official statements. He warns that if the ruling stands public officials wont be able to insulate their social media accounts from harassment, trolling, or hate speech with-out invasive judicial oversight like any other user could.

[T]he President uses his account to speak to the public, not to give members of the public a forum to speak to him and among themselves, Wall argues, again emphasizing that Trump intends this to be a personal, not work, account. Although President Trump is currently a public official, the @realDonaldTrump account belongs to him in his personal capacity, not his official one. He created and began frequent use of that account in 2009, well before taking public office. In contrast to the @WhiteHouse and @POTUS accounts, over which he may exercise control only by virtue of his office, he will continue to have control over the @realDonaldTrump account after his term of office has completed.

Wall argues that Trump blocking people who criticize him on Twitter is akin to an off-duty police officer asking uninvited guests wearing anti-police paraphernalia to leave a pavilion hes reserved in a public park to host a family picnic.

Like police forces, the rest of the governmentincluding the Office of the Presidentis staffed by people who retain private lives, argues Wall. To avoid expanding constitutional restrictions in a way that trammels their own constitutional freedoms, courts must distinguish between their private actions and state action.

Further, Wall argues people can no more insist on being given access to the Presidents tweets on @realDonaldTrump than they could insist on being given entry to Trump Tower if the President chose that as the venue where he made important official announcements to preferred members of the public and press.

By blocking people, Trump is just exercising his prerogative not to listen and he argues denying people in office the ability to do that may deter them from using social media. (Read the full filing below.)

Ironically, therefore, by curtailing the ability of public officials to choose whom they wish to interact with on their own social media accounts, the decision below has the potential to undermine speech rather than further it, argues Wall. Those concerns take on heightened significance when the public official in question is the President of the United States. Denying him the power to exclude third parties accounts from his personal accounta power that every other owner of a Twitter account possesseswould deter holders of his Office from using new technology to efficiently communicate to a broad public audience.

The Knight Instituted on Thursday issued a lengthy press release in response to the filing, including this statement from Executive Director Jameel Jaffer. This case stands for a principle that is fundamental to our democracy and basically synonymous with the First Amendment: government officials cant exclude people from public forums simply because they disagree with their political views, said Jaffer, who argued the case before the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court should reject the White Houses petition and leave the appeals courts careful and well-reasoned decision in place.

Link:

Trump Takes Fight Over Blocking Twitter Users to Supreme Court - Hollywood Reporter