This is covered in the quote in the 4th paragraph. It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone. If they like a sports team the official doesn't, that's probably valid too.
> It applies to all government officials, but it only covers reactions to political statements. Harassment is still a valid reason to block someone.
And if the reaction to every single Trump tweet is “you’re scum I hope you die REEEEEE!”, does that person get a ban? Probably if the official’s anyone other than Trump, I’d guess. Seriously, you folks should look at the people banned, it’s a bunch of losers that would auto post some variant of “you’re an asshole” ten seconds after every Tweet, and they would rocket to the top of the reply list. In a sane world that would be considered harassment and not a valid reaction to a political statement, but whatever.
Sure, they could be blocked for that. The case lists seven individual people who were blocked because they "posted tweets
that criticized the President or his policies". It doesn't mean that every individual person the account has blocked was illegal.
> Will this apply to all government officials on twitter?
The limitations on public officials engaging in viewpoint censorship in a public forum, including a privately owned one, are not new, nor is this the first case where they have been applied to social media accounts. The rules do apply to all government agencies and officials, already, and not just “on Twitter”.
I think this is a 1st amendment issue - which doesn't say you have the right to say anything, it actually says that the government (and the president) cannot stop you from saying things - Trump blocking people on Twitter is exactly this
Excuse my ignorance... You're saying that if someone blocks you on Twitter you're no longer allowed to post something with their @handle? Or that they, as the blocker, just won't see it?
If it's the former, then I would agree with you. If it's the latter, and you're not actually blocked from posting (saying) anything, then where exactly is the violation?
Not just government officials - it seems like the same logic would apply to celebrities like Alyssa Milano who use their twitter almost exclusively as a political campaign forum.
That's not the same thing. Celebrities are not elected officials representing constituents. Perhaps if someone is actually running for office it makes a difference, but I'm not sure when these sorts of laws kick in.
Ok, then does it apply to the aides to a congressman who are actually handling their twitter feeds who are not themselves writing the laws? Any way you sum it up, either Trump should be able to block people, or nobody should be able to block people.
Is it the account of the elected representative? Then yes, it would apply. It doesn't matter if it's a surrogate actually making the posts.
And I highly disagree with the "all or nothing" approach you've laid out. The biggest difference is that Trump is an elected official. Most people are not.
> Ok, then does it apply to the aides to a congressman who are actually handling their twitter feeds who are not themselves writing the laws?
If they are making posts with Trump's account or are making posts on their own account while acting in an official capacity then yes they are almost guaranteed to be subject to this ruling.
Government and government officials have to play to a higher standard than a private citizen. Their actions and statements need to be public so they can be held accountable by the citizens who elected them. That is part of the bedrock that makes democracy work.
It does not, because the First Amendment is a limit on government, and “public forum” in First Amendment case law refers to a space (including a virtual one) over which the government has ownership or control which is used by government for particular purposes. This is a case about (existing) limits on what government officials can do in venues government officials have set up for certain used.
