|
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on
May 23 that comments on the president's account, and those of
other government officials, were public forums and that blocking
Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free
speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on
August 10 sent the Justice Department a list of 41 accounts that
had remained blocked from Trump's @RealDonaldTrump account. The
seven users who filed suit had their accounts unblocked in June.
The 41 blocked users include a film producer, screenwriter,
photographer and author who had criticized President Trump or
his policies. At least 20 of those individuals said on Twitter
that Trump had unblocked them on Tuesday.
The 41 users were not a comprehensive list of those blocked by
Trump. Rosie O'Donnell, a comedian, said on Twitter late Tuesday
that she remained blocked.
The White House did not immediately comment late Tuesday.
The ruling has raised novel legal issues. The Internet
Association, a trade group that represents Twitter, Facebook
Inc, Amazon.com, and Alphabet Inc, filed a brief in the case
earlier this month that did not back Trump or the blocked users
but urged the court to "limit its decision to the unique facts
of this case so that its decision does not reach further than
necessary or unintentionally disrupt the modern, innovative
Internet."
Trump has made his Twitter account, with 54.1 million followers,
an integral and controversial part of his presidency, using it
to promote his agenda, announce policy and attack critics. He
has blocked many critics, preventing them from directly
responding to his tweets.
The U.S. Justice Department said the ruling was "fundamentally
misconceived" arguing Trump's account "belongs to Donald Trump
in his personal capacity and is subject to his personal control,
not the control of the government."
Buchwald rejected the argument that Trump's First Amendment
rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to
interact.
Trump could "mute" users, meaning he would not see their tweets
while they could still respond to his, she said, without
violating their free speech rights.
The Internet Association said the court "should make clear that
this case does not implicate the overwhelming majority of social
media accounts throughout the Internet."
"Despite any First Amendment status that this court might find
in the 'interactive spaces' associated with President Trump’s
account, Twitter retains authority to revoke access to both his
account and the account of any user seeking
to comment on President Trump’s account," the group said.
It also warned "there is a considerable risk that any decision
that may recognize isolated public forums on Twitter will be
misunderstood to hold that Twitter, too, can be subject to First
Amendment scrutiny. ...Twitter itself is not a state actor when
it blocks or withdraws access to its account-holders or users,
and it is therefore not subject to the First Amendment’s
restraints."
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Michael Perry)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|
