Round One in Social Media and First Amendment Rights

I recently wrote an article about a potential class action court case being brought against the President of the United States by the Knight Foundation. In the article, I posited that public servants who use their private social media accounts to make work-related statements may run the risk of causing their accounts to become public domain, considered a government mouthpiece and subject to First Amendment protections. It seems that the first salvo has been fired with regard to legal matters concerning social media and the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In the recent case Brian C. Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, et al, heard in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, it was held that a local politician had violated the free speech rights of a constituent whom she had banned from her Facebook page. The judge said the case raised important questions about constitutional restrictions that apply to the social media accounts of elected officials. It seems that US jurisprudence is moving in the directions I alluded to in my previous post.

—— Read More ——-

Advertisements

TWITTER AND THE RIGHT NOT TO BE BLOCKED

What follows in pure conjecture, and in no way constitutes legal opinion. It merely outlines one of many possible outcomes.

An article in the New York Post on June 6 reported on a potential legal case aiming to force President Trump to unblock users he has blocked from seeing or tweeting to his timeline, either directly or by replying. This raises an interesting legal conundrum. The President uses his personal Twitter account, @RealDonaldTrump, rather than the official @POTUS account that was created under President Obama’s tenure to handle presidential Twitter discourse.

Unintended Consequences
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

———– Read More ————-