You can’t block me: When social media spaces are public forums

ABSTRACT

Since their inception, social media spaces such as Facebook and Twitter have been legally considered private spaces that are not subject to the protections of the First Amendment. Rightly so, for (as many forget) the First Amendment applies to government actors, action, and public spaces, and the Internet is not one of those. However, in 2018, the Knight v. Trump ruling in favor of plaintiffs extended First Amendment protections via the public forum doctrine to those seeking access to (but who have been blocked from) participating in discussions on President Trump’s Twitter account. Numerous other similar cases across the country have found that public officials who use social media to communicate with constituents have established a designated public forum. They therefore cannot choose who is allowed into that space and who is not by blocking (disallowing access for) some members of the public, because this constitutes viewpoint discrimination. This decision is important in bringing forum doctrine into the technological age, and it opens important spaces for democratic deliberation. This article explains the specific requirements for a social media space to be considered a public forum from Knight v. Trump, describes related cases that are using it as a precedent, and explores the implications and unresolved issues related to this case.

KEYWORDS:

• First Amendment
• viewpoint discrimination
• social media
• public forum

Notes

1. Denver Area Educational Telecommunications v. Federal Communications Commission, 518 US 727 (1996), 802.

2. Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541, 579 (S.D. NY. 2018).

3. Ardito, “Social Media, Administrative Agencies, and the First Amendment,” 315.

4. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 10.

5. Jefferson, “The Works, vol. 10 (Correspondence and Papers 1803–1807),” 358.

6. Wright and Street, “Democracy, Deliberation, and Design.”

7. Wojcieszak and Mutz, “Online Groups and Political Discourse,” 40.

8. Packingham v. North Carolina 137 S. Ct. 1730 1735, 1737 (2017), 2.

9. Dorsey, @jack. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037422913819959298.

10. Nunziato, “From Town Square to Twittersphere,” n.p.

Hudson, “Public Forum Doctrine.” January 8, 2020. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/824/public-forum-doctrin, n.p.

11. Nunziato, “From Town Square to Twittersphere,” n.p.

12. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (307 U.S. 496), 513.

13. Ardito, “Social Media, Administrative Agencies, and the First Amendment,” 335.

14. Ardito, “Social Media, Administrative Agencies, and the First Amendment,” 336.

15. Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983),45.

16. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Inc. v. Lee (505 US 672 (1992)), 697.

17. See note 11 above.

18. ISKCON v. Lee, 698.

19. ISKCON v. Lee, 699.

20. Marsh v. Alabama 326 US 501 (1946), 326.

21. Samples, “Why the Government Should not Regulate Content Moderation,” 4.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Stricker, “Assembly on Private Property,” n.p.

25. Bock v. Westminster Mall Company 819 P.2d 55 (1991), n.p.

26. See note 24 above.

27. Kings Mall LLC. v. Wenk (42 A.D.3d 623 (2007); 839 N.Y.S.2d 313), n.p.

28. ACLU, “ACLU of Florida Warns St. Pete Mayor.” August 5, 2009, n.p.

29. Reno, Legal Information Institute, June 26, 1997, n.p.

30. Manosevitch, “The Design of Online Deliberation,” 2.

31. Gutmann and Thompson, “What Deliberative Democracy Means,” 9.

32. Ibid.

33. Gutmann and Thompson, 7.

34. Gutmann and Thompson, 3–6.

35. Gutmann and Thompson, 9.

36. Oxford University Press, “Overview,” n.p.

37. Pernaa, “Deliberative Future Visioning,” 1.

38. Green, Kingzette, and Neblo, “Deliberative Democracy and Political Decision Making,” n.p.

39. Statista, “2019 Congressional Social Media Report,” n.p.

40. Congressional Management Foundation, “Congress on Social Media.” October 14, 2015, n.p.

41. Public Technology Institute, “Social Media Usage within Local Government.” January, 2017, n.p.

42. “All of NYC’s Official Social Media Channels,” n.p.

43. Wright, Graham, and Jackson, “Everyday Online Conversation, Emotion and Political Action.”

Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0.

Karlsen, et al., “Echo Chamber and Trench Warfare Dynamics.”

44. Freelon, “Discourse Architecture, Ideology, and Democratic,” 773.

45. Wright and Street, “Democracy, Deliberation, and Design,” 850.

46. Wojcieszak and Mutz, “Online Groups and Political Discourse.”

47. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 38.

48. Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump No. 18–1691 (2nd Cir. 2019).

49. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 68.

50. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964), 270.

51. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 9.

52. Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump No. 18–1691 (2nd Cir. 2019), 7.

53. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 42.

54. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 59.

55. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 42–43.

56. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 2.

57. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 58.

58. Knight v. Trump, 2018, 63.

59. Knight v. Trump, 2019, 1.

60. Knight v. Trump, 2019, 4.

61. Romo, “U.S. Appeals Court Rules Trump Violated 1st Amendment,” n.p.

62. One Wisconsin Now, 2019, n.p.

63. Bauer, “Liberal Group Sues Wisconsin Republican Lawmakers,” November 2, 2017, n.p.

64. One Wisconsin Now v. Kremer, Jesse et al, No. 3:2017cv00820 (W.D. Wis. 2019).

65. Morgan and Hargis v. Matt G. Bevin, 298 F. Supp 3d 1003 (E.D. Ky. 2017), 1.

66. WSFA12 News, “Suit Filed Against AL Sec. of State for Twitter Blocking.” September 19, 2018, n.p.

67. Gilbert, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Slammed with Two,” July 10, 2019, n.p.

Ingber, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Sued,” July 12, 2019, n.p.

Robertson, “First Amendment Group asks Alexandria Occasio-Cortez,” n.p.

68. Gold, “Ocasio-Cortez Apologizes for Blocking Critic on Twitter,” November 4, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/nyregion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-twitter-dov-hikind.html.

69. Ward, “PETA Lawsuit Against Texas A&M,” May 16, 2018, n.p.

70. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) v. Michael K. Young, No. 4:18-cv-01547 (S.D. Tex. Houston Division, 2018).

71. Langford, “Texas A&M Settles Lawsuit with PETA.” February 4, 2020, n.p.

72. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, “Davison v. Randall,” n.p.

73. Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 680 (4th Cir. 2019), 41.

74. Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas, 921 F.3d 440, 447 (5th Cir. 2019), 1.

75. Robinson v. Hunt County, 10.

76. Robinson v. Hunt County, 2.

77. Davison v. Plowman, No. 1:2016cv00180 (E.D. Va. 2017), 4.

78. Feldman, “The Courts Still Don’t Understand Trump’s Twitter Feed,” July 9, 2019, n.p.

79. Ibid.

80. Beausoleil, “Is Trolling Trump a Right or a Privilege?” 40.

81. Beausoleil, “Is Trolling Trump a Right or a Privilege?” 44.

82. Beausoleil, “Is Trolling Trump a Right or a Privilege?” 45.

83. Packingham v. North Carolina, 8.

84. Knight v. Trump, 2019, 22.

85. Ibid.

86. O’Reilly, “President Trump is Violating my Constitutional,” June 7, 2017, n.p.

87. Editorial Board, “The Constitution and the President’s Tweets,” March 29, 2019, n.p.

88. Ibid.

89. Rinehart, “’Friending’ and ‘Following’ the Government,” 817.

90. Knight v. Trump, 2019, 20.

91. Davison v. Randall, 2019, 43.

92. Knight v. Trump, citations removed, 2018, 60.

93. Davison v. Randall, 2019, 45–46.

94. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

95. Knight v. Trump, 2019, 29.