In Deutschland verschanzen sich immer mehr Politiker immer mehr hinter Blocks. Das muß ihnen per Gericht verboten werden. Bürger haben ein Recht darauf zu erfahren, was die Politiker sagen und schreiben, vor allem wenn es öffentlich ist. Politiker dürfen Teile der Bevölkerung nicht ausschließen.
https://knightcolumbia.org/news/critics-blocked-presidents-twitter-account-file-suit[*quote*]
Critics Blocked from President’s Twitter Account File Suit
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Email
July 11, 2017
Joined by seven individuals from across the country, the Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit in the Southern District of New York today contending that President Trump and his communications team are violating the First Amendment by blocking individuals from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account because they criticized the president or his policies. The Knight Institute sent a letter to the White House last month suggesting that it would file suit if the president and his aides did not unblock individuals who had been blocked because of their views. The White House did not respond to that letter.
“President Trump’s Twitter account has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important forum for speech by, to, or about the president,” said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director. “The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings. The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they’ve disagreed with the president.”
The president and his aides have aggressively promoted the @realDonaldTrump account as a key channel for communication between the president and the public. The White House uses the account to make formal announcements, defend the president’s official decisions and actions, report on meetings with foreign leaders, and promote the administration’s positions on health care, immigration, foreign affairs, and other matters. The president’s advisors have stated that tweets from @realDonaldTrump are “official statements.”
The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they’ve disagreed with the president.
Jameel Jaffer
Today’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of seven people from across the country who have been blocked from the account by the president or his aides. The blocking prevents or impedes these people from reading the president’s tweets, responding directly, or participating in the discussions that take place in the comment threads generated by the president’s tweets. The complaint argues that the @realDonaldTrump account is a “public forum” under the First Amendment, meaning that the government cannot exclude people from it simply because of their views. It also contends that the White House is violating the seven individual plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances.
"I was blocked by @realDonaldTrump." Meet the people represented by the Knight Institute
Moreover, the lawsuit contends that the White House also violates the rights of those who have not been blocked -- such as the Knight Institute, a plaintiff in the case -- who now participate in a forum that has been purged of many critical voices.
“The White House is transforming a public forum into an echo chamber,” said Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “Its actions violate the rights of the people who’ve been blocked and the rights of those who haven’t been blocked but who now participate in a forum that’s being sanitized of dissent.”
Last month, the Supreme Court observed that social media platforms like Twitter have provided “perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” and, in particular, allow citizens to “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the viewpoint-based blocking of people from the @realDonaldTrump account is unconstitutional, and to order the White House to restore access to the seven people represented by the Institute.
Knight Institute lawyers who worked on this suit apart from Jaffer and Fallow include Alex Abdo.
Read the Knight Institute complaint here
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdfAbout the Knight Institute
The Knight First Amendment Institute is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization established by Columbia University and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to defend the freedoms of speech and press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, and public education.
[*/quote*]
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf[*quote*]
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY;
REBECCA BUCKWALTER; PHILIP COHEN; HOLLY FIGUEROA; EUGENE GU; BRANDON NEELY; JOSEPH PAPP; and NICHOLAS PAPPAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; SEAN M. SPICER, White House Press Secretary; and DANIEL SCAVINO, White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President, Defendants.
Civil Action No.
__________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Introduction
1.
President Trump’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President. In an effort to suppress dissent in this forum, Defendants have excluded — “blocked” — Twitter users who have criticized the President or his policies.
This practice is unconstitutional, and this suit seeks to end it.
2.
As the Supreme Court recognized just a few weeks ago, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide “perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”
Packingham v. North Carolina, slip op. at 8, 582 U.S. ____ (2017).
These platforms have been “revolution[ary],” not least because they have Case 1:17-cv-05205 Document 1 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 25
2
transformed civic engagement by allowing elected officials to communicate instantaneously and directly with their constituents. “Governors in all 50 States and almost every Member of Congress have set up [Twitter] accounts for this purpose,” id. at 5, allowing citizens to “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner,” id. at 8.
Twitter enables ordinary citizens to speak directly to public officials and to listen to and debate others about public issues, in much the same way they could if they were gathered on a sidewalk or in a public park, or at a city council meeting or town hall.
3.
Because of the way the President and his aides use the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the account is a public forum under the First Amendment. Defendants have made the account accessible to all, taking advantage of Twitter’s interactive platform to directly engage the President’s 33 million followers. The President’s tweets routinely generate tens of thousands of comments in the vibrant discussion forums associated with each of the President’s tweets.
Further, Defendants have promoted the President’s Twitter account as a key channel for official communication. Defendants use the account to make formal announcements, defend the President’s official actions, report on meetings with foreign leaders, and promote the administration’s positions on health care, immigration, foreign affairs, and other matters. The President’s advisors have stated that tweets from @realDonaldTrump are “official statements,” and they have been treated as such by politicians, world leaders, the National Archive and Records Administration, and federal courts.
4.
Plaintiffs include individuals from acro ss the country who have been blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account because of opinions they expressed in replies to the President’s tweets. Because of their criticism of the President, these Plaintiffs have been prevented or impeded from viewing the President’s tweets, from replying to the tweets, from
Case 1:17-cv-05205 Document 1 Filed 07/11/17 Page 2 of 25
[*/quote*]