I’m not American and I’m not familiar with US free speech law, so apologies if this is an obvious question, but…
I read recently that a federal appeals court ruled Trump couldn’t block people on Twitter. The reason, as I understand it, was that Trump’s Twitter account is a essentially a sort of “public forum” where citizens have the right to engage with his comments, a bit like they’d be able to attend a town hall meeting or something.
My question is: If Trump isn’t allowed to block citizens from his feed because it’s a public forum and they have a right to access it, does Twitter itself have the right to ban anyone? I’m not on Twitter, but if I was, and I got banned, I’d also have been denied access to the very same public forum. Of course, Twitter is an international platform, but let’s assume I’m a blue check verified American citizen. If I was banned, wouldn’t Twitter have infringed on my right to engage with Trump’s comments?
As I understand it, the ruling applies in situations where the accounts are being used to conduct government business. The reality is that we don’t really know yet how this will play out for private citizens.
I don’t understand the court decision. Blocking someone on twitter doesn’t stop them from reading your tweets (for an unprotected account like Trump’s, anyway). Is there a constitutional right to respond?
Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government. If the Twitter account is being used to conduct grievance-inducing government business, then citizens have the right to respond to that business. (Whether or not they have the right to respond on Twitter itself, directly to the Twitter account in question is another matter, and probably the same as or close to the one being adjudicated.)
Thanks, I understand now. It’s another example of courts wrestling with the consequences of the internet I guess. There’s a lot of that about these days.
