US federal judge rules Trump’s Twitter account is a public forum
A US judge’s ruling on President Trump’s Twitter account could be the first step towards taking free speech laws into the social media era, writes the University of Florida’s Clay Calvert.
A federal judge in New York has ruled that President Donald Trump cannot block people from following or viewing his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account. While the case will likely be appealed and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision is a resounding victory for the First Amendment right of citizens to speak to and disagree with government officials in the social media era.
The judge’s ruling is not a surprise to me, as director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida. That’s because it is grounded in the well-established principles of protecting political speech and barring government discriminationagainst people engaged in public discourse based on their viewpoints.
Sure enough, the judge found that Trump blocked Twitter followers from his account “indisputably … [as] a result of viewpoint discrimination.” In other words, Trump cannot block people simply because they criticize him or his policies.
While recognising that Australia has no comparable “First Amendment” rights, this does bring into question the routine blocking by ABC News and Fairfax journalists of Facebook users that do not agree with their point of view. A case of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander I would have thought. In the case of Fairfax it could be construed as a commercial decision to alienate certain sections of their readership (and perhaps lose subscriptions/advertisers as a result) but the ABC is supposed to be “impartial” and represent the views of ALL Australians, not just the ones that agree with their so-called “journalists”.
Which Amendment to the US Constitution would your prefer the POTUS to slavishly follow and protect – the First Amendment (free speech) or the Second Amendment (gun rights).
What are the chances that he will challenge the ‘free speech’ ruling yet still feverishly defend the ‘gun rights’.