"We're pleased with the court's decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. (Photo: Twitter/Screenshot)
Ruling Against 'Pernicious and Unconstitutional' Practice, Judge Says Trump Can't Block People on Twitter
"We're pleased with the court's decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform."
In a decision free speech advocates celebrated as a "historic moment for the First Amendment" and online freedom of expression, a federal judge ruled (pdf) on Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for their political views or criticism of his policies.
"We're pleased with the court's decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, a free speech advocacy group that brought the "groundbreaking" case on behalf of seven individuals Trump has blocked from seeing his Twitter posts.
"The president's practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end," Jaffer added.
In her opinion issued on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed with the Knight Institute's argument that Trump's Twitter feed qualifies as a "public forum," and argued that blocking users from viewing and interacting with the president's frequent posts and tirades simply because of their political views is a violation of users' First Amendment rights.
"The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president's personal First Amendment interests," Buchwald wrote. "Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the president and [White House social media director Dan] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional."
The Knight Institute's lawsuit, filed last July, took on particular significance as it could be one of many cases that "help society interpret free speech and First Amendment in [the] digital age," Alberto Ibarguen, CEO of the James L. Knight Foundation, noted in a tweet on Wednesday.
Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute who led oral arguments in the case, said the court's application of the First Amendment to the president's habit of blocking users on Twitter "should guide all of the public officials who are communicating with their constituents through social media."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
In a decision free speech advocates celebrated as a "historic moment for the First Amendment" and online freedom of expression, a federal judge ruled (pdf) on Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for their political views or criticism of his policies.
"We're pleased with the court's decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, a free speech advocacy group that brought the "groundbreaking" case on behalf of seven individuals Trump has blocked from seeing his Twitter posts.
"The president's practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end," Jaffer added.
In her opinion issued on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed with the Knight Institute's argument that Trump's Twitter feed qualifies as a "public forum," and argued that blocking users from viewing and interacting with the president's frequent posts and tirades simply because of their political views is a violation of users' First Amendment rights.
"The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president's personal First Amendment interests," Buchwald wrote. "Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the president and [White House social media director Dan] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional."
The Knight Institute's lawsuit, filed last July, took on particular significance as it could be one of many cases that "help society interpret free speech and First Amendment in [the] digital age," Alberto Ibarguen, CEO of the James L. Knight Foundation, noted in a tweet on Wednesday.
Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute who led oral arguments in the case, said the court's application of the First Amendment to the president's habit of blocking users on Twitter "should guide all of the public officials who are communicating with their constituents through social media."
In a decision free speech advocates celebrated as a "historic moment for the First Amendment" and online freedom of expression, a federal judge ruled (pdf) on Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for their political views or criticism of his policies.
"We're pleased with the court's decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, a free speech advocacy group that brought the "groundbreaking" case on behalf of seven individuals Trump has blocked from seeing his Twitter posts.
"The president's practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end," Jaffer added.
In her opinion issued on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed with the Knight Institute's argument that Trump's Twitter feed qualifies as a "public forum," and argued that blocking users from viewing and interacting with the president's frequent posts and tirades simply because of their political views is a violation of users' First Amendment rights.
"The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president's personal First Amendment interests," Buchwald wrote. "Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the president and [White House social media director Dan] Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional."
The Knight Institute's lawsuit, filed last July, took on particular significance as it could be one of many cases that "help society interpret free speech and First Amendment in [the] digital age," Alberto Ibarguen, CEO of the James L. Knight Foundation, noted in a tweet on Wednesday.
Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute who led oral arguments in the case, said the court's application of the First Amendment to the president's habit of blocking users on Twitter "should guide all of the public officials who are communicating with their constituents through social media."