On Wednesday afternoon, Federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that President Trump will not be allowed to block users on Twitter. In her ruling, she stated that, by doing said thing, Trump is breaking the law and the Constitution.
Since this is the space where users can interact directly with the President’s tweets and statements, his account “@realDonaldTrump” has been analyzed under the criteria of a public forum, set by the Supreme Court, and been identified as one. Therefore, the act of blocking Twitter accounts based on their political opinions and beliefs can be considered as discrimination that violates the First Amendment. All of this was written in Buchwald’s ruling, as well as the fact that, “all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared” and that her, “declaratory judgment should be sufficient” for Trump and his actions.
The suit was filed by The Knight Institute, who was reached by several users that had been blocked by the president. The Institute showed contempt with the ruling, saying that it demonstrated a careful application of the First Amendment, adapting its approach over government censorship to a new media platform like Twitter. Some of the plaintiffs included a journalist who accused Trump of having colluded with Russians during the 2016 elections, a surgeon and a Texas police officer. It has been mentioned that Knight reportedly knows of at least 150 confirmed Twitter users who have been blocked by the president and that they believe for there to be several more. One of the plaintiffs, Holly Figueroa O’Reilly, states that she was blocked after having shared a GIF of Pope Francis “side-eyeing” the president, adding the phrase, “This is pretty much how the whole world sees you.”
Knight staff attorney Katie Fallow, who represented the institution in court, said that the ruling should also be applied to all public officials who use social media to communicate with their constituents. However, the Justice Department defended the president’s blocking of Twitter users by saying that doing so is one of his “associational freedoms,” and should be able to decide who he interacts with on the platform. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders and former communications director Hope Hicks were dismissed as defendants for the case. A spokesperson for the Justice Department stated that they are considering how to proceed and move forward. Despite that statement, spokespeople for the White House have not stated whether Trump will now unblock the currently blocked users.
Wednesday’s ruling comes as a surprise since, during a previous hearing held in March, Judge Buchwald encouraged both parties to find a simpler solution, outside of court, questioning the necessity of the process by saying, “Why are we here? Don’t we have a solution that serves the interests of the plaintiffs, serves the interests of the President?” She also proposed that the President merely mute rather than block the Twitter accounts. While Fallow showed herself responsive and open to the idea, stating that it might be a more achievable procedure, some of the people who presented the problem to Knight were not on board with the idea. Philip Cohen, a sociology professor who was blocked by Trump, stated out of the Manhattan courthouse in March after the hearing that if, “he just doesn’t want to hear from us, then he would mute” and that, “obviously he wants to suppress our speech”.
Trump’s activity on Twitter throughout his presidency has recently created a debate regarding the limitations that a public official like him would have while using the platform, especially having been previously just a regular user.
Featured Image via Flickr/Michael Vadon
