We’ve received a lot of good questions about why we believe that public servants—mayors, sheriffs, senators, even @RealDonaldTrump—can’t block people whose views they dislike on social media without violating those persons’ free speech rights. (1/7)
Although the case in which we filed a “friends of the court” brief, Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, is specifically about President Trump’s Twitter feed, we see this as a much broader issue.
We frequently receive reports from community activists and other social media users who were blocked from commenting on an agency’s Facebook page, or prevented from contributing to a community discussion prompted by an officials’ tweet.
We receive reports about how governmental officials manipulate social media comments to exclude opposing views to create the impression that hotly contested policies are not contested at all.
And in seeing how agencies use social media to quickly disseminate emergency information during natural disasters, we realize that the ability to receive such messages can be a matter of life and death.
Whether through an official or personal account, if a platform is being used to conduct the government’s business, the account is subject to the First Amendment.
Here’s our deep dive into the issue to explain our thinking and our reading of the law that supports our position, and to answer questions we received about the case and about the First Amendment. eff.org/deeplinks/2017…
