But if someone tweets the same sign or uses a Nazi swastika as their avatar they would likely be banned by Twitter in very short order. If someone wishes to carry signs down Pennsylvania Avenue advocating genocide of one group or another, they cannot be prohibited from doing so. Should he choose to march down the street, in a heavily Jewish neighborhood while clad in a Nazi uniform, he can. In a traditional public forum, an individual has a right to engage in whatever outrageous or vile speech he wishes. From Fossa and Above The LawĪs law professor Greg Dolin illustrates, Twitter’s control over the forum makes it a uniquely different place, very often with different content than what is found in a public forum. Join us on November 16th to uncover the key ingredients of a comprehensive, effective, and efficient compliance program. How the president uses the account should matter far less than the unambiguous and legal fact of just who owns and in effect “controls” the Twitter account, and spoiler alert: It is not the president. Although this description of use is undeniably true, it is also completely irrelevant. More specifically, the court concluded “that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.” Because this decision completely overlooks or ignores the obvious legal structure of the president’s Twitter account, I can expect or at least only hope that it will one day be overturned.Īccording to the Second Circuit, the president’s Twitter account bears “all the trappings of an official, state-run account” given that the president regularly uses it to make announcements relating to his office.
A week ago, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that the current president could not block Twitter users from following his account.
0 kommentar(er)
