President Trump’s Twitter account has been a target of the Left since the day he announced his candidacy for president in 2015.
The Left has been triggered by many of his tweets and have sought to prevent him from going over the heads of the mainstream media, to communicate his message to the American people.
Recently, Twitter announced that they would be placing a warning on tweets made by world leaders that violated their speech guidelines. This policy was clearly directed at President Trump’s Twitter account.
Twitter released a statement saying, “Certain unnamed government officials and public figures … sometimes say things that could be considered controversial or invite debate and discussion … a critical function of our service is providing a place where people can openly and publicly respond to their leaders and hold them accountable … we will place a notice on such tweets in the future.”
By “unnamed government officials,” they clearly mean President Trump.
Now, the courts have intervened to interfere with Trump’s Twitter account.
Appeals Court Rules That Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter
Like many Twitter users, President Trump has blocked people from commenting on his account because they say something he doesn’t like. He is not unique.
However, the United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit disagrees. The court views Trump as unique because he is a public official, and by blocking users from his account, he is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The New York Times reported that “President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday … because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views.”
This is a flawed ruling; Trump’s Twitter activities are not a violation of the First Amendment. If Trump were cracking down on free speech and censoring content in the media, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. However, he is doing no such thing.
Trump had a Twitter account before he was president, presumably he blocked people when he was a private citizen as well. What is the difference?
Just because he became president shouldn’t change his right to block people from his account.
This is another case of activist judges who rule based on personal animosity, rather than the original intent of the Constitution.
Judge Parker — who wrote the majority opinion — wrote, “This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing. In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
That sounds like a personal opinion, not a legal one. The First Amendment allows freedom to petition the government as well. Just because citizens can’t engage with the president on his Twitter account doesn’t mean that they can’t formally petition the president through other means.
It is a ludicrous legal argument and should be treated as such.