That would contradict the bedrock idea of the First Amendment about free speech, which Justice William J. summarized 53 years ago, in , as “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”In early June, a month before the Knight Institute filed its lawsuit, the group wrote a widely publicized letter to Trump asking him to unblock the accounts of its clients and others blocked for similar reasons.Tags: Short Essay About My Christmas VacationCritical Essay ArticleLiterary Essay RubricGwu Essay QuestionSubmission EssayBook Report On The PactPoverty Definition EssayCurrent Political Situation In Essay
Otherwise, the Knight Institute argues, the government could turn the marketplace of ideas into an echo chamber, where the only opinions heard are favorable to the president and his administration.
It’s no secret that Trump is proud of his ability to use the account to communicate directly with his constituents.
This summer, the president tweeted, “My use of social media is not Presidential—it’s MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL.” He meant that his tweets are official statements of the president of the United States.
By banning these users based on views they expressed about tweets by the president, the Institute argues, Trump violated the users’ right to free speech because the blocks were based on disagreement with the users’ messages.
(I am affiliated with the institute, but not directly involved in the lawsuit.) Two weeks ago, as part of this litigation, lawyers for the president acknowledged that he personally blocked the Twitter users “because the Individual Plaintiffs posted tweets that criticized the president or his policies”—what free speech law calls “viewpoint discrimination.” In places where the First Amendment applies—such as public forums—it bars the government or its officials from such bias.