Another View: Twitter and the First Amendment

I try to keep these blog postings both short and readable.  That's one reason there are links to articles and legal documents (which I hope you read).  Of course, the issues I blog about quite often don't fit neatly in that format.  While I try not to "dumb down" issues, I can't flesh out every aspect of it.  And since the main purpose of this blog is "legal education for all", it's only proper that I give you differing views on these issues.

 Eugene Volokh is a highly respected law professor at UCLA, specializing in the First Amendment.  He is also a well-known blogger, most notably for The Volokh Conspiracy. He published a piece before the Knight Center suit was filed, responding to a letter the Knight Center sent to President Trump, arguing that his viewpoint-based blocking of people from his Twitter account violated the First Amendment.  Trump and his aides did not comply with the letter asking that the people represented by the Knight Center (2 of the 6 eventual plaintiffs) be unblocked.  Hence the lawsuit.

 Volokh and I see things slightly differently, so I urge you to read his piece.  (Actually, anything I have ever seen for him is worth a read; The Volokh Conspiracy can be found in the Wahington Post and on Twitter).  While finding the matter "not open and shut", he doesn't feel that the position of the Knight Center has it "quite right."  (Volokh is a careful, balanced writer).  I think the main point of disagreement is whether or not Trump is running his account as Trump-the-man (his view) or Trump-the-President (my view).  Volokh also points to two cases in federal court (the Eastern District of Virginia) which deal with deletion of Facebook comments from Virginia government agencies.  The opinions are somewhat lengthy, but Volokh nicely summarizes them, most notably the point that office-holder run accounts operated by the government and not a government official are subject to First Amendment constraints.  (One of the cases did find a First Amendment violation which Volokh talks about in this post, published after the Knight Center filed its lawsuit).  Even so, Volokh feels that even if Trump gets some help (typos and all, as he says) it's still Trump-the-man, but again, "this falls near a borderline that has that has not been mapped in detail".  I just see it differently.

 If it were easy, we wouldn't be blogging about it. Stay tuned.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stare Decisis: What It Is, Why It Is Important, And More Controversial Than You Might Think (Oh, And Spider-Man)

Image
Stare decisis might be the first Latin legal term you learn in law school.  It was for me.  But like all Latin terms, you quickly find an English equivalent: judicial precedent. The concept is both simple and complex, straightforward and convoluted.  It will be the subject of this post; it's also the subject of the book pictured above, all 910 pages of it.  I will attempt to make stare decisis--judicial precedent--a concept you can understand and maybe even apply.  And Spider-Man will help. First, the simple.  "Stare decisis" is Latin for "stand by things decided".*  In the simplest of terms, it is the doctrine of precedent, which is when an issue is brought to the court that has already been decided and there is a precedent--a case decided by the court that answers the issue before it--to that effect, and that is how the case should be decided.  If I am bringing a case about X and the court can point to a case that has already decided X (a precedent) I
Read more

Cakes and BBQ: Masterpiece Cake Shop, Ollie McClung and Piggy Park Enterprises

This post has taken an inordinately long time to write.  Thank you to all my loyal followers for your patience! Aside from the holidays and being sick (which coincided) there is also trying to figure out how to write something about a case that has received so much media attention. And as I stated in a previous post, I claim an exemption from my usual "not taking sides" approach; I just feel too strongly about this case. So here goes.  (If you need a refresher on what this case is about, see my post of 11/9/2017 on Masterpiece Cake Shop). By now you most likely know that the argument split along what is usually called ideological lines, with the conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas) being on the side of the baker and the liberal wing (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) being on the side of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, with Justice Kennedy playing the role of the swing vote. You may also have heard that some commentators believe that Kennedy wil
Read more

Welcome to Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat!

Image
Welcome to my blog!  It is a blog devoted first and foremost to "legal education for everyone".  No, I'm not trying to turn anyone into a lawyer (having taught at a law school I know what's involved in that).   Nor will I be using this blog to express my own legal opinions (though you can't talk about the law without doing some of that).  The goal is to provide information about the law and how it operates, usually focused on the legal newsworthy events of the day, though from time to time it may be a historic event that I think is important (or a legal oddity that I find interesting). First, an important caveat: this blog is not meant for, does not, and (according to the Rules of Professional Conduct) cannot provide any type of legal advice.  As they say, if you are in need of some legal advice, get a lawyer. Why this blog, you might ask?  It actually started with a series of postings on my Facebook page about the "travel ban" cases that
Read more