In recent days, President Trump has used Twitter to warn Mexico that he may close the border, suggest that The New York Times and The Washington Post be stripped of their Pulitzer Prizes for coverage of the special counsel’s Russia investigation and to criticize the Federal Reserve for raising interest rates in 2018.

And if Mr. Trump had his way, Brandon Neely, among others, would be blocked from seeing any of those tweets.

Mr. Neely, a police officer in Houston, is one of an untold number of Twitter users who have been blocked by Mr. Trump. These users, if they are logged into their accounts, can’t see the president’s tweets and are unable to reply to them or see others’ responses.

The president’s actions led Mr. Neely, along with six others blocked by Mr. Trump, to sue him, saying he had violated their First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Manhattan ruled against Mr. Trump last year, finding that the president’s Twitter feed was a “public forum” and that his blockings were unconstitutional.

Mr. Trump appealed the ruling, and the case went before a three-judge panel in Manhattan last week. The judges seemed skeptical of Mr. Trump’s contention that he was acting in a personal, not official, capacity when he blocked people.

Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker asked Mr. Trump’s counsel, a Justice Department lawyer, why “points of view the president doesn’t like” isn’t “just a quintessential First Amendment violation.”

How the appeals court rules in the Trump case may have larger implications, as elected officials around the country expand the use of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Federal judges are grappling with the question of how the First Amendment may apply to those accounts.

Blocking on social media is not a partisan phenomenon. In 2017, for instance, ProPublica sent letters asking all 50 governors and 22 federal agencies whether they had blocked people on social media. Five Republican governors, four Democrats and four agencies responded with information about people they had blocked. Many agencies and more than half the governors did not respond.

In New York, the issue has arisen with Representative Peter King, a blunt and occasionally combative 14-term Republican congressman who represents parts of Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. Recently, one of his constituents collected the names of about 70 people who say they have been blocked from commenting on Mr. King’s Facebook page.

“He’s like this big tough guy but he doesn’t want to hear any criticism whatsoever,” said the constituent, Jacqueline Hassett, who has been blocked and has met with lawyers about the possibility of suing Mr. King.

The seven Twitter users who sued Mr. Trump have been unblocked, following the lower-court ruling. (Anybody blocked by the president can still, in theory, view Mr. Trump’s tweets. In an entry on its F.A.Q. page, Twitter tells users, “If the account you’ve blocked isn’t logged in or is accessing Twitter content via a third party, they may be able to see your public Tweets.”)

Other judges have issued similar rulings: Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld a lower-court ruling that the Democratic chairwoman of the Loudoun County board of supervisors had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent by blocking him on Facebook for about 12 hours.

Elsewhere, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that three state assemblymen violated the First Amendment when they blocked a liberal advocacy group on Twitter; Jerry Brown, the former Democratic governor of California, produced records in 2017 showing that he had in the past blocked more than 1,500 people on Facebook and Twitter; and Paul Gosar, a Republican congressman of Arizona who in 2017 wrote a post on Facebook titled, “So you’re upset I blocked you on Facebook. Here’s why I don’t care, a three-part series,” said last year in a court filing that he was no longer blocking anyone.

Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which filed the Trump case and argued the Loudoun County appeal, said that social media accounts may be seen as public forums if they are used to make announcements related to government duties, engage with constituents about policy or if they use government resources — if, for example, staffers create posts.

“Public officials all over the country are using social media often as the main means of communicating with their constituents,” Mr. Jaffer said. “We want to make sure those officials aren’t insulated from criticism, make sure participants in those digital spaces aren’t deprived of the opportunity of hearing other citizens’ divergent views and make sure these spaces retain their vitality and integrity and aren’t transformed into echo chambers.”

In many ways, Mr. King’s Facebook page reflects his public persona. It includes pictures of him in a Long Island diner with retired firefighters, a video of him at a St. Patrick’s Day parade and a description of a meeting with an Israeli diplomatic official.

The page also includes announcements that he was backing legislation to fund the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, co-sponsoring a tax deduction bill and introducing a resolution calling for the extradition of people in Cuba who have been charged with crimes in the United States.

Mr. King said during a telephone interview that he has the right to block who he wants on his Facebook page because it does not use government resources; he also contends that it is separate from his congressional work. He said that his campaign committee pays to boost his posts, which are meant to function like re-election ads.

“I wouldn’t have to give any opponent an opportunity to comment on my campaign brochure,” Mr. King said, adding that he only blocks some of his critics, usually those who make inappropriate remarks or comment frequently.

Mr. King has interacted with commenters, thanked supporters and sparred with critics. When a constituent from West Sayville, Chris Ann Rogers-Pellegrino, asked on Facebook in 2017 for a “special outside investigation into Trump Russia ties,” and told Mr. King she hoped he was loyal to “the fabric of our democracy” his reply was: “My loyalty is to the Constitution, not the liberal zeitgeist.”

Ms. Rogers-Pellegrino said she was blocked almost immediately after posting her message. Another constituent, Danielle Miller, said she was blocked last year after disagreeing with a post by Mr. King that said kneeling protests by professional football players were “rooted in the false narrative of police bias against black men.”

Several constituents who had been blocked said they were concerned that limiting criticism would create a misleading impression that Mr. King’s positions are more reflective of his district than they actually are.

Christine DiBiase Martorana, from Seaford, said she was blocked after posting she was disappointed in Mr. King’s “continued emphasis on Islamic terrorism” and asking for his thoughts “on non-Muslim terrorists.” Meg Rowe, from Brightwaters, said she was blocked after stating that she was keeping track of how many people Mr. King was blocking.

“It’s infuriating, honestly,” said Ms. Rowe, who in 2017 began a Facebook page called “Blocked by Peter King” to document blockings and the removal of posts. “We just want some avenue to talk with him, even if we disagree, because it’s his job to listen to us.”

Source: Read Full Article