09-19-2018 06:50:04 AM -0700
09-18-2018 12:35:56 PM -0700
09-18-2018 09:56:59 AM -0700
09-17-2018 11:21:15 AM -0700
09-17-2018 08:45:13 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Judge Rules Trump Violates First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter

trump speaks to media at white house

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge ruled today that President Trump cannot block his critics on Twitter because his feed is a "public forum" protected by the First Amendment.

Last July, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of seven individuals arguing that blocking users on the @realDonaldTrump account who disagreed with the president's policies violated freedom of speech.

The blocked plaintiffs are Maryland professor Philip Cohen, Tennessee Dr. Eugene Gu, Seattle songwriter Holly Figueroa, New York comedy writer Nicholas Pappas, Pittsburgh author Joseph Papp, D.C. legal analyst Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Houston police officer Brandon Neely.

"When I found out the president blocked me, it felt as though my opinion didn’t matter," Neely said last year. "After devoting five years of my life to serving this country, the president -- who is supposed to represent the views of all Americans -- did not care what I had to say."

The Knight Institute argued that by Trump hitting the block button, he was violating the plaintiffs' right to petition their government for redress of grievances.

“The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings," said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director, when the lawsuit was filed. "The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they’ve disagreed with the president.”

The lawsuit was filed against Trump, now-former communications director Hope Hicks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and White House social media director Dan Scavino.

Today, senior judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Naomi Reice Buchwald, who has served on the court since 1999, agreed with the Knight Institute.

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no," she wrote in the ruling.

Buchwald rejected the White House claim that the plaintiffs did not meet standing to bring the action against the president. "They have experienced a legally cognizable injury, those injuries are traceable to the President and Daniel Scavino’s conduct, and a favorable judicial decision on the merits is likely to redress those injuries," she wrote.

"We then proceed to the substance of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the 'interactive space' where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the 'public forum' doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. In so holding, we reject the defendants’ contentions that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President’s personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs," the ruling continued.