Federal Court Rules President Trump Cannot Ban his Critics on Twitter

President Donald John Trump can’t ban his critics from posting on his Twitter account, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today.

A three-judge panel agreed with the lower court judge’s decision determining the president violates the First Amendment when he blocks critics among his 60 million followers from commenting on his official page.

A New York judge’s ruling previously found that Trump “engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by using Twitter’s “blocking” feature, eliminating users’ access to posting on the president’s social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large.

All because someone who disagrees with the president criticized him.

“We hold that he engaged in such discrimination,” the appeals court ruling found.

“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,” the appeals court judges determined.

The ruling came after a complaint was filed in federal court by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued on behalf of seven U.S. citizens blocked for posting comments critical of Trump on his Twitter page, according to CBS San Francisco.

Attorney Jennifer Utrecht, who represented the president, said during oral arguments that the account was created before Trump became president and that he was acting in his private capacity when he blocked citizens from criticizing him as the President of the United States.

Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker criticized her arguments, which may have foreshadowed today’s ruling.

“Are you seriously urging us to believe that the president is not acting in his official capacity when he is tweeting?” Parker said.

“Why isn’t that just a quintessential First Amendment violation?”

The circuit court of appeals ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t allow a public official using a social media account for “all manner of official purposes” to ban people from an open discussions when they disagree with their critics.

In 2014 , we covered a similar story after San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore removed the department’s Facebook page following a lawsuit filed on behalf of Dimitri Karras after the department removed his comments, which were critical of the sheriff and his qualifications for the job.

Karras’ Attorney, Scott McMillan, said the lawsuit, “Will be very big. I see it as Government bringing up their skill set on free speech up to standards–current standards. They would [probably] know better to do something like this in front of their building, why do they think their digital public forum is any different?”

Karras, who said it was about principle to him more than money, settled the case for $20 after the state agreed to pay his attorney’s fees.

- Advertisement -

President Donald John Trump can’t ban his critics from posting on his Twitter account, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today.

A three-judge panel agreed with the lower court judge’s decision determining the president violates the First Amendment when he blocks critics among his 60 million followers from commenting on his official page.

A New York judge’s ruling previously found that Trump “engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by using Twitter’s “blocking” feature, eliminating users’ access to posting on the president’s social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large.

All because someone who disagrees with the president criticized him.

“We hold that he engaged in such discrimination,” the appeals court ruling found.

“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,” the appeals court judges determined.

The ruling came after a complaint was filed in federal court by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued on behalf of seven U.S. citizens blocked for posting comments critical of Trump on his Twitter page, according to CBS San Francisco.

Attorney Jennifer Utrecht, who represented the president, said during oral arguments that the account was created before Trump became president and that he was acting in his private capacity when he blocked citizens from criticizing him as the President of the United States.

Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker criticized her arguments, which may have foreshadowed today’s ruling.

“Are you seriously urging us to believe that the president is not acting in his official capacity when he is tweeting?” Parker said.

“Why isn’t that just a quintessential First Amendment violation?”

The circuit court of appeals ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t allow a public official using a social media account for “all manner of official purposes” to ban people from an open discussions when they disagree with their critics.

In 2014 , we covered a similar story after San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore removed the department’s Facebook page following a lawsuit filed on behalf of Dimitri Karras after the department removed his comments, which were critical of the sheriff and his qualifications for the job.

Karras’ Attorney, Scott McMillan, said the lawsuit, “Will be very big. I see it as Government bringing up their skill set on free speech up to standards–current standards. They would [probably] know better to do something like this in front of their building, why do they think their digital public forum is any different?”

Karras, who said it was about principle to him more than money, settled the case for $20 after the state agreed to pay his attorney’s fees.

- Advertisement -

Support our Mission

Help us build a database of bad cops

For almost 15 years, PINAC News has remained active despite continuous efforts by the government and Big Tech to shut us down by either arresting us for lawful activity or by restricting access to our readers under the pretense that we write about “social issues.”

Since we are forbidden from discussing social issues on social media, we have created forums on our site to allow us to fulfill our mission with as little restriction as possible. We welcome our readers to join our forums and support our mission by either donating, volunteering or both.

Our plan is to build a national database of bad cops obtained from public records maintained by local prosecutors. The goal is to teach our readers how to obtain these lists to ensure we cover every city, county and state in the country.

After all, the government has made it clear it will not police the police so the role falls upon us.

It will be our most ambitious project yet but it can only be done with your help.

But if we succeed, we will be able to keep innocent people out of prison.

Please make a donation below or click on side tab to learn more about our mission.

Subscribe to PINAC

Bypass Big Tech censorship.

Leave a Reply

- Advertisement -

Latest articles