by George Upper
There’s been a lot of theorizing about the effect of social media on
the 2016 presidential election, most of it — in the establishment media,
anyway — focused on how Donald Trump’s campaign, with or without the help of the Russians,
“stole” the election from Hillary Clinton by selectively planting “fake
news” on Facebook.
But Trump’s social media advantage during the campaign was never on
Facebook; it was always on Twitter, from his announcement through the
election and inauguration.
And, while it wasn’t obvious at the time, that’s when swamp water
began seeping into Trump’s online presence, with the ultimate result
being that federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump
cannot block users from access to his Twitter account without violating
the First Amendment to the Constitution after seven plaintiffs — we
don’t have their names, but I’m guessing they don’t hail from
right-of-center heartland America — sued over the practice.
The judge ruled that, because blocking accounts that disagree with
him on Twitter prevents those users from expressing their disagreement
with him on what was essentially a public forum amounted to government
suppression of their right to free speech, according to The New York Times.
Now, given the circumstances, the judge could hardly have decided
anything differently. It’s not the judge in the wrong here; it’s the
circumstances surrounding the judge’s decision.
Again, that’s true. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that
this should never have been an “official government account” in the
first place.
Donald Trump — with the help of media experts in his employ, one
would imagine — built his following on Twitter long before he ever ran
for office, and he continued to build it — and expertly so — during his
campaign. If the account had remained under his personal control, he
could block or not block anyone he chose.
But that’s not what happened.
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are
considering our next steps,” said the Justice Department, which is
representing the president in the case.
‘The right thing for the president and his social media director to
do would be to log into the president’s account and unblock everyone who
has been blocked on the basis of viewpoint,” said Jameel Jaffer, the
plaintiffs’ attorney and the executive director of the Knight First
Amendment Institute, which joined the case as a plaintiff itself.
The court, however, did not order the president to take such an
action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any
government employee or elected official with a social media account
funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face
similar lawsuits. Again, since White House staffers became involved,
free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really
necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account
really that, a personal account?
And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?
The court, however, did not order the president to take such an
action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any
government employee or elected official with a social media account
funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face
similar lawsuits. Again, since White House staffers became involved,
free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really
necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account
really that, a personal account?
And the president should be able to communicate directly with the
American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats.
Shouldn’t he?
