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.

摘要

自成立以来，诸如Facebook和Twitter之类的社交媒体空间在法律上被视为私有空间，不受第一修正案的保护。没错，因为（许多人忘记了）第一修正案适用于政府行为者，行动和公共场所，而互联网不是其中之一。但是，在2018年，骑士诉特朗普案有利于原告的裁决通过公共论坛原则将第一修正案保护范围扩大至那些寻求获得（但被阻止参加）特朗普总统推特帐户讨论的人。全国各地的许多其他类似案例也发现，使用社交媒体与选民沟通的政府官员已经建立了一个指定的公共论坛。因此，他们不能选择允许谁进入该空间，谁不能通过阻止（禁止进入）某些公众来选择，因为这构成了观点歧视。该决定对将论坛学说带入技术时代很重要，并且为民主审议提供了重要空间。本文解释了将社交媒体空间视为公开论坛的特定要求，奈特诉特朗普一案，描述了将其作为先例的相关案件，并探讨了与此案有关的含义和未解决的问题。