Seven Twitter
users who were blocked by President Donald Trump are asking a federal appellate court to rule that the blocks violate the First Amendment.
“As public officials increasingly use social
media as a means of speaking to and hearing from their constituents, it is imperative that the First Amendment be understood to safeguard the right of citizens to participate freely in these new
virtual forums, including by expressing criticism and dissent,” the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University says in papers filed late Friday with the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The Knight Institute is representing seven critics of Trump who were blocked by him on Twitter. Last year, the institute sued Trump, arguing that he violated the critics' free speech
rights.
U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in New York ruled
against Trump in May. She held that it is unconstitutional for government officials like Trump to block Twitter users based on their political views.
The Department of Justice had argued
to Buchwald that the blocked users could continue to read tweets from the president's @realDonaldTrump account, and could still interact with other users. But Buchwald said the blocks impermissibly
limited people's ability to use Twitter.
"As long as they remain blocked, 'the Individual Plaintiffs cannot view the President’s tweets; directly reply to these tweets; or use the
@realDonaldTrump webpage to view the comment threads associated with the President’s tweets while they are logged in to their verified accounts,'" she wrote, quoting from a court document.
She added that it is difficult for people to "understand the reply tweets without the context of the original @realDonaldTrump tweets."
The White House recently appealed that ruling to the
2nd Circuit. Among other arguments, the administration argues that @realDonaldTrump is a “personal” account, and that the blocks are "merely an exercise of his personal, not governmental,
authority to exclude individuals."
The Knight Institute counters in its new papers that Trump and his staff use @realDonaldTrump “as an extension of the presidency.”
“The account is akin to a digital town hall, with the President speaking from the podium at the front of the room and assembled citizens responding to him and engaging with one another about
the President’s statements,” the institute writes.
“In an effort to suppress dissent, the President ejected from this forum -- 'blocked' -- the individual plaintiffs and
other Twitter users who criticized him or his policies,” the organization adds. “The same principles that would have rendered this conduct unconstitutional in a conventional town hall
render it unconstitutional here.”
The lawsuit over Trump's Twitter account is not the only case dealing with public officials' ability to exclude people on social media. Governors of
Maryland, Kentucky and Maine were also sued recently for allegedly blocking critics.
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan recently resolved the lawsuit by agreeing to refrain from deleting critical comments on Facebook, Twitter or other
social media platforms. Hogan's office also agreed to adopt a new social media policy that prohibits discrimination based on viewpoint, but allows for the removal of some comments, including ones that
contain profanity, are "disruptively repetitive," or "clearly unrelated to governmental concerns."
Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin and Maine Governor Paul LePage are contesting the cases.