Should the President Be Allowed to Block People on Twitter?

Since taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has posted on Twitter more than 5,000 times. His tweets announce policy decisions, promote his accomplishments, criticize political opponents—and spark debates nationwide. 

But it’s his habit of blocking online critics that recently made headlines. Last year, seven people sued Trump for blocking them on Twitter after they posted negative comments about him. And this spring, a federal judge ruled in their favor. 

The judge said that blocking users from viewing or commenting on the president’s account (@realDonaldTrump) violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment protects free speech and the right to criticize the government, among other things. (Free-speech groups estimate that the president has blocked hundreds of people.)

Lawyers for Trump, however, say the president should be allowed to block whoever he wants—and for whatever reason—just like any other Twitter user. They argue that the First Amendment doesn’t apply because @realDonaldTrump is the president’s personal account, not an official form of government communication. Trump’s lawyers plan to fight the ruling in court, so the legal battle will continue.

What do you think? Should the president be allowed to block people on Twitter? Two experts—one from a conservative research group, the other from an organization that defends free speech—weigh in.

The president should be able to block people on Twitter, just like anyone else with a Twitter account. The judge who ruled that President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking certain followers was wrong.

It’s important to note that the First Amendment prevents the government from censoring Americans’ speech. But Twitter isn’t the government. It’s a private social media company. That means First Amendment protections don’t apply in the same way.

As a private company, Twitter, not the government, controls the accounts of its 300 million users, including Trump’s. As its terms of service outline, Twitter “may suspend or terminate your account . . . at any time for any or no reason.” So even though the president can block individuals from his own account, Twitter has ultimate control over @realDonaldTrump.

But don’t Americans have the right to criticize their president? Of course they do. Anyone blocked by Trump may say whatever they want about him on their own Twitter accounts, or anywhere else on social media for that matter (as long as they don’t violate the rules those companies have put in place). The First Amendment, however, doesn’t require Trump or anyone else to “listen” to that criticism. 

In the end, Trump has the right to decide who will have access to his Twitter account, just like all other users. The fact that he is the president doesn’t change that.  

—HANS VON SPAKOVSKY
Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

One of the core functions of the First Amendment is to protect Americans against government censorship.  

The country’s Founders couldn’t have imagined presidential Twitter accounts. But they understood that the president must not be allowed to ban some views from public discussions simply because he doesn’t like them.

This idea applies to digital spaces like Twitter just as it does to physical gatherings like town halls or school board meetings. President Trump often begins his day by announcing important information on Twitter, such as the resignation of a Cabinet member or his views on Congress. This information immediately reaches his 55 million followers, and it often sparks a discussion among them and others on the tweet’s comments thread.

But when the president blocks a user, that person can no longer reply directly to the president. Other users can’t see the blocked person’s replies. As a result, the blocked user is excluded from the political conversation.

This issue is important for several reasons. For one thing, many public officials—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—use social media to talk to their constituents and hear their views. The more that Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms become public spaces where people communicate with their elected officials, the more important it is that core First Amendment principles aren’t left behind.        

—KATIE FALLOW
Senior Attorney, Knight First Amendment Institute