As you read the decision below, contrast that with how Big Social Media can armor up with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) to claim 'neutral platform' status, yet operate with near-impunity as publishers who exercise editorial authority to ban, shadow-ban, sandbox, or otherwise censor to impose their viewpoint discrimination. It's an obvious one-way street.
From Ronn Blitzer at FOX News:
"In a Tuesday decision, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals noted that because Trump uses Twitter to communicate with the public about his administration, and his account is open to the public for people to comment on his posts, it warrants constitutional free speech protection under the First Amendment.
“We do conclude,” the opinion said, “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.”There you go. Whether its the emoluments persecution, or demands for tax returns, or private business investigations, and now, a court ruling, we have the instruments of government targeting one man - Trump.
According to court documents, Trump admitted that he blocked the plaintiffs in the case in 2017 after they posted tweets that “criticized him or his policies.” Once they were blocked, they were no longer able to view Trump’s tweets while logged in, and no longer had access to reply to tweets or view comment threads on Trump’s Twitter page.
The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination against a person’s free speech based on their viewpoint. Trump claimed that his Twitter account is private, so the First Amendment should not apply.
The court said that Trump’s account was indeed private before he became president, but that changed once he took office and used it for official business, as it now displays “all the trappings of an official, state‐run account." The court said that once Trump leaves office, his account will be considered private again.”"
Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection explores the unintended consequences of such a ruling:
"Take the principles of the Court opinion outside the Twitter context. Does a politician holding a forum have to allow everyone in?I wonder how this applies to a Democrat, former Secretary of State who smashed devices, deleted emails, and wiped clean a private email server (like with a cloth?) while all were under grand jury subpoena and Congressional investigation in order to shield from public scrutiny? Silly question.
And extend those principles to other politicians, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been sued by a multiple political rivals and critics for blocking them on Twitter."
