Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia University is
considering suing President Donald Trump for blocking people from his Twitter
account. (1)
Isn’t that a right of every social media user? Blocking is a great way to protect privacy,
express outrage about a tweet you disagree with and the final act of giving up an
old girlfriend. But, if you are the
President of the United States, it shouldn’t be a freedom that is enjoyed.
To place this in context, what if the President of the
United States used caller ID and blocked your phone calls? You wouldn’t be able to express your view
point on an item of importance to the nation.
How about if the post office, noticing that your letter is
being sent to the president, wouldn’t deliver it to the president because of his orders.
How about Western Union being instructed by the president to
not deliver telegrams from you.
If the president doesn't like you, or your
opinions, he still can't deny access to you by stopping all letters, post cards,
telegrams or any other communication with him.
As a private citizen, blocking someone on Twitter or any other social media can be allowed. But, as soon as a private citizen becomes a
public citizen by running for office, holding office, working for the
government as an appointee or employee, especially as the most important public
citizen in the country, the rules change.
This is a basic First Amendment right. While it isn’t directly “speech”, it is an
element of speech called access. A free
press, widely interpreted as free speech, has 6 parts. They are access, inquire, records,
publication, association and redress.
Access is the ability to “reach” the official.
If a citizen of the country doesn’t have access to what is
being said by the people that make, enforce or judge the laws of the country,
they are not able to fully exercise their First Amendment rights. Once a person crosses the line from private
citizen to public figure (government official) citizens of the country must be
able to have access to him or her just like anyone else. To block some citizens and keep others is
like creating a first tier - second tier relationship with the very people you
are to protect and support equally.
Conventional forms of communications; letters, telegrams,
voice; have helped define our First Amendment rights. No matter the form, delivery is assured to
the official. He or she can choose to
read and consider each piece of communications, or toss it in the trash, as I
am sure much of it does.
Social media has changed much of the structure of
communications. In the past, a public
official may have selected a traditional medium, like a newspaper, a radio
station or a television program, to communicate to the public. Even though access for some people in the
country might be difficult using traditional media, none can be cut off from
its access. Response through the same
channels was accessible.
Yes, when President Trump chooses to use Twitter to
communicate his thoughts and policy statements, he has chosen a medium that all
citizens have broad access to. But,
there is an element that is a component of the medium that isn’t included in
tradition media. Users can be cut off by
the President by his ability to block.
Those cut off don’t have access to what is said and don’t have the
ability to communicate back in like form.
The President of the United States’ expressions of thoughts
on policy must be open to all to both receive and respond.
(1) Knight first amendment institute https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/6/15748776/knight-institute-donald-trump-twitter-block-free-speech-letter
Other thoughts
to consider:
Courts have
consistently supported the difference of a private and public profile.
