President can’t block Twitter followers – Is the time right for registrants to take on Facebook?
Yesterday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the President cannot block individuals from his Twitter feed. In a case brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and seven individual plaintiffs, Donald Trump’s ability to block certain individuals from accessing his otherwise public posts was ruled unconstitutional.
The opinion, which can be read here: Trump-Twitter-ca2-20190709 ruled that the presidents “tweets” are considered government speech and that his efforts to block certain critics from following him on Twitter is discriminatory and violates the First Amendment.
Facebook’s policy block any person required to register as a sex offender from accessing their platform. Most politicians have social media account and the most widely used is Facebook. Many political and news outlets require a Facebook account to post a comment to a story. In fact, courts have recognized that social media is the new town square. Traditionally a public forum was a place such as a park,street, or sidewalk where citizens have assembled, discussed public questions, and facilitated communication.Within these areas, the Supreme Court has held, government can prohibit activity only when necessary to serve a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored (see: Perry Education Assoc. v. Perry Local Educators, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983))
So if social media is the new forum for politicians and news outlets to speak to the public and facilitate communication, how is it that Facebook can ban a segment of the population from accessing its public forum?
Although the 2nd Circuit case expressly states, “We do not consider or decide whether an elected official violates the Constitution by excluding persons from a wholly private social media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms“, is it time for those who are banned to take on the companies that ban them?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Agree with Not Steve totally. Facebook is a total waste of time and constructive energy. Many will disagree, but isn’t there something better to do with the time we have each day? When I sporadically see what my own sisters put on their Facebook accounts I actually feel ill. It really is an insult to a persons’ intelligence, and not worth a c___. Sorry to offend anyone, but thats how I see it.
Donna
I agree that Facebook can be a huge waste of time and it takes effort to keep it contained. But I think it would be helpful for my situation where I have kids and grandchildren spread out over 4 States and they would love for me to keep in touch through it since they are all on it.
It seems IMHO, Facebook cannot do both of these:
1) Stand by their claim that they are a private company and can decide who can use their software.
2) Allow municipal accounts whereby citizens are informed of city ordinances.
Once Facebook allows government agencies to have accounts it become government speech and must be accessible to all, otherwise it is not free speech.
Other problems are: Even if Facebook would have a reason to ban a user, Facebook’s removal of the wall restricts other people’s free speech.
For example: Assume a controversial political figure such as Reverend Jesse Jackson is removed from Facebook along with every post he ever made. Facebook also removes the ‘wall’ limiting the free speech of everyone who posted comments regarding him.
Other problems: Assume you are convicted of a sex crime but your case is in appeals. You could prove you are innocent because there is a Facebook post of you at a large party at the time of the crime. Once you are removed from Facebook, you do not have access to the evidence to prove your innocence.