Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets
&quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.&quot;<p>I don&#x27;t get how somebody can argue for this as a first amendment right. The first amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that you can say anything you want anywhere you want (keyword: anywhere). The Supreme Court has ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional. For example, the government can restrict you from standing at the door of an abortion clinic and protesting, but cannot prevent you from protesting abortions publicly. This case seems like a pretty clear-cut example: you are not being censored by saying that you cannot tweet directly to President Trump, as long as you still have the right to publicly state your views. The fact that the speech doesn&#x27;t make it to the ears of the President has never been a concern with free speech. The goal is to allow people to assemble and share their views with those who wish to listen. If Trump wears noise-cancelling headphones while passing by a protest, is he infringing upon your right to free speech? The thing here is that the tweets still do get sent out, and it&#x27;s not like you&#x27;re shadow-banned. The President has opted-out of viewing your tweets, just like how wearing noise-cancelling headphones is opting out of hearing your speech.<p>More importantly, it is still important to note that they have not stopped your ability to actually speak to the President. You can send a letter in the mail or protest in front of the White House if you so wish to. It also creates a sticky situation when you think of the consequences of Twitter banning a user. If Twitter is to be considered a protected &quot;free speech zone,&quot; the company loses the right to ban users.<p>Fundamentally, this situation is nothing like what the first amendment has ever been applied to. It&#x27;s not even really a debate on freedom of speech, but rather a right to audience. Is it within your constitutionally-protected right to have an audience? Based on what the Bill of Rights represents, I would argue that any such restriction is against the spirit of the document. The point of the document is to protect the individual from the government, not coerce the government or individuals into action -- if this becomes a protected mode of free speech, Twitter is coerced into allowing all messages to be published to anyone.