Being blocked on Twitter by President Donald Trump might be seen as a singular accomplishment by some users of the social media service. But for others, being denied the chance to engage with the president smacks of a violation of the Constitution.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that lawyers for Twitter users who were blocked by Trump for criticizing or mocking him are seeking to have that designation reversed. They argue that the account @realDonalTrump “operates as a ‘designated public forum’ for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional.”
The users are represented by Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and in a letter to Trump they tell the president that his Twitter comments on matters “mundane as well as momentous” has afforded Americans valuable insight into his “policies, actions and beliefs.”
“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,” Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute, said in the Times story. “Having opened this forum to all comers, the president can’t exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what they’re saying.”
The letter to the president says that even if Trump and his advisers found posts by certain users to be “scornful and acerbic,” they are protected by the First Amendment and that his Twitter account is a designated public forum for essentially the same reasons that open city council meetings and school board meetings are.
