Some time ago the highest courts in the United States ruled that Donald Trump blocking people, especially journalists, on Twitter is unconstitutional and thus he's forbidden from doing that.
It's very easy and tempting to hastily jump to the opinion that this is completely ridiculous. Trump cannot block people anymore? What travesty is this?
However, the ruling is actually justified.
When Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President of the United States, he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. These are not just empty words, nor meaningless customs. It's extremely meaningful in the United States.
As a member of the government, especially as the head of it, he's indeed bound to uphold the Constitution, and this is not taken lightly by the courts. Prior to his presidency, and after it, he can block whoever he wants on social media. However, as the President, as a representative of the government, his status is different. He is bound by a rather stricter set of rules.
In general, the courts take the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, very seriously. They also tend to interpret the spirit of the Constitution not just the letter. While the First Amendment states "congress shall make no law", this is generally interpreted in a much broader way, according to the spirit of the amendment.
This is a restriction on the government, and you cannot get around this by semantic wordplay. If a governmental body, or individual, were to, for example, promote censorship (such as, let's say, campaigning for social media or the press to censor certain opinions), they cannot get around the Constitution by saying for example "but we are not part of congress", or "this is not a law proposal". No, you cannot weasel yourself around the Bill of Rights by resorting to semantic games. The First Amendment is generally interpreted to restrict all activities by the government, not just that of the congress in particular, and not just the process of lawmaking.
Thus, the courts ruled that since Donald Trump is not only a representative of the government, but in fact the head of it, he cannot block people on social media in his capacity as President, because that's seen as the government restricting people's access to public information and statements made by the government, which is against the spirit of the First Amendment. Once he stops being the President he can block whoever he wants, but while in office, he cannot.
I think this is reasonable. It's a consistent and logical ruling based on the spirit of the First Amendment, which restricts the actions of the government.
Now, many have noticed and pointed out that one of the most infamous representatives in congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has herself blocked certain members of the press on her social media account. She is currently part of the government (and congress, no less), so the same rule should apply to her as well.
Even worse, she has publicly advocated censorship on her social media account, which likewise ought to be blatantly against the First Amendment, in her capacity as a governmental official.
But of course we know that when it comes to the regressive left, it's always one rule for thee, another for me.
It's very easy and tempting to hastily jump to the opinion that this is completely ridiculous. Trump cannot block people anymore? What travesty is this?
However, the ruling is actually justified.
When Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President of the United States, he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. These are not just empty words, nor meaningless customs. It's extremely meaningful in the United States.
As a member of the government, especially as the head of it, he's indeed bound to uphold the Constitution, and this is not taken lightly by the courts. Prior to his presidency, and after it, he can block whoever he wants on social media. However, as the President, as a representative of the government, his status is different. He is bound by a rather stricter set of rules.
In general, the courts take the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, very seriously. They also tend to interpret the spirit of the Constitution not just the letter. While the First Amendment states "congress shall make no law", this is generally interpreted in a much broader way, according to the spirit of the amendment.
This is a restriction on the government, and you cannot get around this by semantic wordplay. If a governmental body, or individual, were to, for example, promote censorship (such as, let's say, campaigning for social media or the press to censor certain opinions), they cannot get around the Constitution by saying for example "but we are not part of congress", or "this is not a law proposal". No, you cannot weasel yourself around the Bill of Rights by resorting to semantic games. The First Amendment is generally interpreted to restrict all activities by the government, not just that of the congress in particular, and not just the process of lawmaking.
Thus, the courts ruled that since Donald Trump is not only a representative of the government, but in fact the head of it, he cannot block people on social media in his capacity as President, because that's seen as the government restricting people's access to public information and statements made by the government, which is against the spirit of the First Amendment. Once he stops being the President he can block whoever he wants, but while in office, he cannot.
I think this is reasonable. It's a consistent and logical ruling based on the spirit of the First Amendment, which restricts the actions of the government.
Now, many have noticed and pointed out that one of the most infamous representatives in congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has herself blocked certain members of the press on her social media account. She is currently part of the government (and congress, no less), so the same rule should apply to her as well.
Even worse, she has publicly advocated censorship on her social media account, which likewise ought to be blatantly against the First Amendment, in her capacity as a governmental official.
But of course we know that when it comes to the regressive left, it's always one rule for thee, another for me.
Comments
Post a Comment