(July 9, 2019, 11:20 a.m.) -- A three-judge federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents government officials from blocking/banning comments critical of the officials on the officials' otherwise open social network pages that discuss their actions or government policies. The opinion handed down today (July 9) by the U.S. 2nd dist. Court of Appeals (NY, Vt, Ct) uphleld a ruling of NY federal district court judge and is the first federal appellate panel (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court) to do so.

The U.S. Justice Dept. argued that President Trump's Twitter page was his personal page enabling him to do as he wished with it. The three judge federal appellate panel (two judges appointed by former President George W. Bush, a third appointed by former Pres. Obama) disagreed in an opinion that can be viewed in full at this link.

The principles articulated in the 2nd district appeals court opinion [CA/western states' 9th circuit hasn't ruled on a case directly raising the issue] could have implications locally. Some Long Beach residents report that some LB incumbents have periodically blocked/banned them (and in some cases later unblocked/unbanned them) from uploading critical comments on the incumbents' social network pages. [LBREPORT.com is interested in hearing from LB residents who say they've been blocked/banned from LB elected officials' Facebook or Twitter pages. Email us at: mail@LBReport.com or send us a private Facebook message via LBREPORT.com's Facebook page.]

President Trump appealed from a federal district court judge's ruling that he had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter’s "blocking" function to limit certain users' access to his Twitter feed, which is otherwise open to the public, because he disagreed with their speech.  The U.S. Justice Dept. defended President Trump's actions, arguing that the social network page belongs to him and he could do as he wishes with it.

The appellate court panel disagreed. "We [three judge panel] hold that he [President Trump] engaged in such discrimination and, consequently, affirm the judgment below," the three appeals court judges wrote and in their concluding paragraph stated:.

[Scroll down for further.]

The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide-open, robust debate.  This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.  This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing.  In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you, who would? Help keep our independent news with stories like this one alive and growing. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests or other special interests seeking or receiving benefits of City Council development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. No one in our ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.