Daily Archives: June 8, 2017

In a letter to Trump on Tuesday, lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University called on the president to unblock people on Twitter (TWTR, Tech30). The group is representing two Twitter users who were blocked by the president after they tweeted critical statements to him.

The lawyers argue that Trump can't exclude people from engaging with him on Twitter based on their viewpoints.

"Your Twitter account is a designated public forum for essentially the same reasons that open city council meetings and school board meetings are," the lawyers wrote in the letter.

The letter is directed at the @RealDonaldTrump account, but lawyers say it applies to the @POTUS account as well.

When someone is blocked on Twitter, they are unable to follow the account, view the account's tweets when logged in to the service, or view tweets the account has liked.

Related: Trump appears to take his cues from Fox News in tweets on London attack

The letter raises interesting questions about how government social media accounts should be treated. The lawyers aren't saying all Twitter blocking violates the First Amendment, but if government officials use Twitter in an official capacity, they shouldn't be able to block people for expressing an opinion.

"While [the letter] relates to our most prominent Twitter user, the principles we seek to vindicate apply to all public officials and public entities that use social media to conduct government business and allow the public to participate," Katie Fallow, senior attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told CNN Tech.

Nearly all high level public officials use Twitter -- many of them to engage in official business.

Courts have previously said public social media accounts used as public forums should not censor opinions. In Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, the plaintiff argued that deleting a post on the Facebook page of a County Supervisor violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The court agreed, saying the county can't discriminate or block people based on their views.

On Tuesday, press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets are considered official White House statements.

If Trump doesn't unblock Twitter users, Fallow said the Knight First Amendment Institute would consider a lawsuit.

CNNMoney (San Francisco) First published June 6, 2017: 6:03 PM ET

Read more:
Trump blocking Twitter critics raises First Amendment ...

Forbes

Tuned In To The First Amendment: Court Upholds Satellite Radio's Right To Choose Advertisers Forbes Business entities have endured increasingly strident criticism of their free speech rights in recent years. Thankfully, the US Supreme Court and most lower federal courts have declined to embrace critics' ideologically-driven perspective that the First ...

More here:
Tuned In To The First Amendment: Court Upholds Satellite Radio's Right To Choose Advertisers - Forbes

Hundreds of people commented on Bernard Weisberger's widely shared article on the dangers Donald Trump poses to press freedom.

Your Turn: Red Alert The First [...]

President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House on Feb. 16, 2017. Trump berated the media repeatedly, calling CNN, The New York Times and other outlets "dishonest" and "very fake news" for reporting unfavorable stories about him. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

In a recent article for BillMoyers.com, Red Alert: The First Amendment Is in Danger, Bernard Weisberger wrote that Donald Trump is threatening freedom of speech in America with his frequent attacks on the press. In Trumps eyes, Weisberger writes, the most villainous persecutors are the mainstream fake news organizations that dare to oppose his actions and expose his lies. Weisberger reminds us that another US president, John Adams, despised criticism and, with the help of Congress, was able to crack down on the press. In the midst of a national emergency in 1798, Adams signed the Sedition Act, a direct violation of the Constitutions guarantee of freedom of speech. A number of journalists were prosecuted and locked up for speech critical of the government. Weisberger says it could happen again.

Hundreds of people wrote on Facebook page in response to the post; a sampling of these lightly edited comments can be seen below, including a response by Weisberger.

BY Bernard Weisberger | June 2, 2017

Excluding the media

Earlier this year at one of Sean Spicers off-camera briefings, The New York Times, CNN and other news sources were excluded. EXCLUDED from an administration-sponsored forum designed to facilitate getting news out! In my mind this is a clear violation of the First Amendment. John Connett

The covfefe heard around the world

Were already experiencing how Trump manipulates the press. For example, when a stupid typo (covfefe) can make the headlines on the first page for a week while shoving the Russian investigation to the back page or not mentioning it at all. Its only one of many examples of how Trump has succeeded Stay focused; we can walk and chew gum at the same time, so prove it and while investigating Trumps numerous missteps and misleads, stop making them the main story for days on end; always keep the Russian investigation on the front burner. Margi Underwood

What about Obama?

How quickly we forgot the Obama administrations war on whistleblowers. Good thing there wasnt any genuine trouble there. Michael Peck [Note: Peck made a number of related comments, which can be viewed in this thread.]

Mr. Peck, you are clutching at straws to make it seem that Obama was no better than Trump is now. Prosecuting those who broke a law against revealing state secrets is not the same as demanding a law that makes it a crime to criticize the president and thereby suppress all political opposition. Bernard Weisberger

One of many threats

The GOP is attacking our Constitution on every front rule of law, free and independent press, free and fair elections, First Amendment guarantee of free speech yet no one seems concerned that America is on the verge of becoming an autocracy! If you havent already, read Timothy Snyders On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century for a reality jolt. Jack Wall

Like Russia or Turkey

Everyone who cares had better contact their senators and representatives because criticism is driving Trump off the cliff. They have already cut off the White House press corps, refuse to answer questions and advocated locking up protestors. How does that make us different from Russia or Turkey or any other authoritarian state? Trump is a baby. He is not strong. He would go to any lengths to shut down the negative press. Beware. It is up to you to protect our Constitution. Trump has never read it. Sheila Karlson

Stifling speech makes us all losers

We have a voice and need to keep using it. Everyone loses when free speech is stifled. Trump and his administration have been trying to undermine and control the media from the beginning of his campaign. We have to continually pull ourselves out of the weeds and not be duped by all the noise. Stay focused and do your research. Dont forget hate begets hate so be careful to not let anger become a distraction. Rhonda Donaldson Combs

Theodore Roosevelt on criticizing the president

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. Theodore Roosevelt quote, shared by Simone Carbone

Enough with Big Data: Knock on Doors and Talk to Voters

Read this article:
Your Turn: Red Alert The First Amendment Is in Danger - BillMoyers.com

If you're fed up with President Donald Trump's early morning tweetstorms, you may be compelled to unfollow him or maybe even block his account, and apparently that's the same way he feels about you.

A free speech advocacy group from Columbia University complained on Tuesday that Trump blocks the Twitter accounts of people he doesn't agree with. That blocking constitutes a violation of the First Amendment, the Knight First Amendment Instituteargued, because the government has designated Trump's Twitter account as a public forum.

"Though the architects of the Constitution surely didn't contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the President must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable," Knight Institute Executive Director Jameel Jaffer said in astatementon Tuesday. "Having opened this forum to all comers, the President can't exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what they're saying."

Twitter'sblocking featureis meant to be used as "an effective way to handle unwanted interactions from accounts you do not want to engage with," according to the company. A blocked account cannot view tweets, lists of followers, likesor lists of the user who blocked it.

The Knight Institute demanded that Trump unblock the accounts of people whom he blocked because of their views, but it did not threaten legal action. No word on if muting -- which just blocks someone's tweets from appearing on Trump's timeline -- would be acceptable.

Whether or not access to Trump's tweets is protected under the First Amendment, it's clear that the government itselfconsiders his personal tweets to be public recordsunder the Presidential Records Act, which means that they must be preserved. In other words, if Trump doesn't unblock you, you'll eventually be able to visit the National Archives to see his tweets, assuming you still care about his early morning rants by the time they're preserved. (Or you could justlook at his Twitter pagewhile not signed into your account.)

Tom is PCMag's San Francisco-based news reporter.

Read this article:
Does Trump's Twitter Blocking Violate the First Amendment? - Entrepreneur

First Amendment

Posted Jun 08, 2017 07:00 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock

A Wisconsin county is fighting a First Amendment lawsuit that challenges its attempt to regulate augmented reality games like Pokmon Go.

In a May 31 motion, Milwaukee County says there is no court precedent giving First Amendment protection to augmented reality games and the suit by app developer Candy Lab should be tossed.

Candy Lab is challenging a county ordinance that requires augmented reality game makers to get a permit before the games can be played in public parks.

Augmented reality technology superimposes computer-generated images on live smartphone video. Candy Lab uses the technology for its Texas Rope Em poker game. Players start with two random cards and must travel to designated locations to collect additional cards.

Candy Labs April 21 suit (PDF) says the Milwaukee County ordinance amounts to a prior restraint on its speech, is unconstitutionally vague, and restricts its speech on the basis of content. The Hollywood Reporter, the Associated Press, Courthouse News Service and the Register have stories.

Milwaukee County counters that Texas Rope Em isnt entitled to First Amendment protection because it doesnt convey any messages or ideas, the dismissal motion (PDF) says. The game has no plot, no storylines, no characters and no dialogue, the county argues.

Nor is there any federal court decision extending First Amendment protection to augmented reality games, the dismissal motion says.

Candy Labs complaint is full of ad hominem attacks on Milwaukee County and colorful allegations about all the ways in which the new ordinance violates its First Amendment rights, the dismissal motion says. But Candy Lab forgets one thing. There can be no First Amendment violation where there is no First Amendment right.

Here is the original post:
Does First Amendment protect augmented reality games like Pokmon Go? Suit raises the issue - ABA Journal

National Constitution Center president and CEOJeffrey Rosen recently interviewedFloyd Abrams, the legendary First Amendment attorney of firmCahill Gordon who argued Citizens United and the Pentagon Papers case, among many, many others.

In the interview, Abrams discusses his new book, The Soul of the First Amendment, which explores how and why America protects free speech more often, more intensely, and more controversially than anywhere else in the world.

The program was part of Americas Town Hall, the Constitution Centers ongoing series of constitutional conversations and debates held in Philadelphia and across the country. Visit constitutioncenter.org/debate to learn more.

Todays show was engineered by David Stotzand edited byJason Gregory.It wasproduced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Continue todays conversation onFacebookandTwitterusing@ConstitutionCtr.

We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at[emailprotected].

Sign up to receiveConstitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.

Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at Americas Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

We the Peopleis a member ofSlatesPanoplynetwork. Check outthe full roster of podcasts atPanoply.fm.

Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is aprivate nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visitconstitutioncenter.orgto learn more.

Recent Stories on Constitution Daily

Can the Justices decide the Trump immigration case swiftly?A lesson from 1981

Answers, and new questions, on partisan gerrymandering

Podcast EXTRA: Trump, Comey and obstruction of justice

Filed Under: First Amendment, Podcasts

The rest is here:
Podcast: The soul of the First Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)