blah blah blah blah blah…get off your soap box Ed. “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that. “
Well, President Trump has been slapped down once again for blocking social media users who are critical of him or are mocking him. However much that bothers him…he’s not actually allowed to do that under the Constitution since he uses his twitter account @realDonaldTrump for official policy pronouncements and international diplomacy…AND…campaigning. The fact that all of those communication components resides on one account is confusing and as far as I am concerned, unethical.
What would I like to see? An account that is used by the president for official communication…an entirely separate and easily identifiable campaign account…and since even the president has a right to free speech, one that is CLEARLY a personal account…but I don’t know how you achieve this last one…particularly with Donald Trump as president.
And something similar should be de rigueur for all elected officials…and cabinet members or department heads as well…at all government levels.
But in the meantime, here’s where the president got called out today:
President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era.
Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled unanimously.
Writing for the panel, Judge Barrington D. Parker noted that the conduct of the government and its officials are subject today to a “wide-open, robust debate” that “generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.” The First Amendment prohibits an official who uses a social media account for government purposes from excluding people from an “otherwise open online dialogue” because they say things the official disagrees with, he wrote.“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” Judge Parker wrote. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
emphasis mine
I need to follow up with my electeds on this…surprisingly he hasn’t blocked Blogging Blue…yet!
Recent Comments