The High Court of the United States is considering whether public officials have the power to block their social media critics. This important legal discussion has the potential to shape the boundaries of the government’s power to control the conversations and access to information on social media platforms.
The case, which is being litigated in the wake of a First Amendment lawsuit, involves President Donald Trump’s decision to block critics from his Twitter page. The blocked followers were politically opposed to Trump’s policies, including his immigration policies. The individuals brought suit, alleging that the blocking of their accounts constituted a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
The High Court was asked to determine whether a public official may legally block his or her critics from a social media account. Trump’s legal team argued that Twitter is a private platform and the President’s page is a personal account which does not constitute a public forum. The blocked followers countered that Trump’s Twitter page was used as an official platform from which the President disseminated government messages, and as such should be treated as a public forum.
In their oral argument, the justices of the court seemed largely divided on the issue, with some leaning towards allowing public officials to block their critics, while others expressed skepticism. The justices raised the issue of whether it would be appropriate for a public official to exercise their power to suppress criticism of their policies.
One of the justices noted that Twitter has long been used to disseminate information to the public and that blocking users could put an impermissible limit on the free exchange of ideas. In response to this, Trump’s legal team argued that the President has a right to determine who is allowed to participate in a conversation on his page, since it is his private account.
The High Court has yet to make a decision on the issue, although it is unlikely to rule in favor of the blocked followers. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already drawn a great deal of attention to the issue of government censorship on social media, and how access to public forums may be unfairly restricted by public officials.
