The Knight First Amendment Institute is sending a letter to the White House asking President Trump to unblock some Twitter followers.
Some Twitter users say President Trump should not be able to block them on the social network.
The president makes unprecedented use of Twitter, having posted more than 24,000 times on his @realDonaldTrump account to 31.7 million followers. His tweets about domestic and foreign policy — and media coverage of him and his administration — has transformed Twitter into a public forum with free speech protections.
That’s the opinion of two Twitter users, who have the backing of the Knight First Amendment Institute. They are sending a letter today to the White House asking Trump to unblock them on his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account.
Both users say they were blocked recently after tweeting messages critical of the President. Holly O’Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan) , whose Twitter account identifies her as a March for Truth organizer, said she was blocked on May 23 after posting a GIF of Pope Francis looking and frowning at Trump captioned « this is pretty much how the whole world sees you. »
Similarly, Joseph Papp (@joeabike) , an « anti-doping advocate » and cyclist, said he was blocked after posting « Why didn’t you attend your own PittsburghNotParis rally in DC, Sir? #fakeleader » in responses to the President’s June 3 tweet of his weekly address.
In the letter to Trump and the White House, the Knight First Amendment Institute’s attorneys argue that Trump’s Twitter account « operates as a ‘designated public forum’ for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional. We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been blocked for similar reasons. »
Even though the tweets may have « disagreed or ridiculed you, » the letter says, « they were protected by the First Amendment. » The Supreme Court has supported protections of « sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks » as part of the « robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment, » the letter says.
That means Twitter followers should not be excluded from the ongoing debate on the network — since they are blocked, they no longer see Trump’s tweets and, subsequently, they cannot post replies that would be seen by other Trump followers.
The Knight Institute’s attorneys plan legal action if Twitter followers who have been blocked because of their views are not unblocked. “Though the architects of the Constitution surely didn’ t contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the President must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable, » said Jameel Jaffer, the institute’s executive director, in a statement. « Having opened this forum to all comers, the President can’ t exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what they’ re saying.”
Trump also has 18.7 million followers on the @POTUS account on which he has posted 647 tweets. His activity on Twitter has helped the social network see a 6% uptick in average monthly active users, Twitter said when it announced its first-quarter financials in April.
« His use of Twitter is obviously unique and unprecedented in this area, » said Katie Fallow, a senior litigator at the institute, founded a year ago by the non-profit John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to preserve the First Amendment in the digital age.
The institute became « aware of a trend over the past week or so of (Trump) or someone who administers his account blocking people who are critical of him, » she said. « You are blocking those users so they can’ t see his tweets and can’ t reply to him. It both affects their ability to hear the speech of the president but also affects their ability to participate in what is a very lively and active public conversation. »
This case also serves as a signal to other local, state and federal officials to be inclusive on Twitter, Fallow said. « You have a number of public officials and government entities at local, state and federal levels using social media to conduct the business of government, » she said. « When they do so and they allow for participation by the public that creates a public forum and they cannot discriminate based on viewpoint against speakers in that forum. »
Follow USA TODAY reporter Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider .
