Introduction
Donald Trump’s Twitter account is one of the most popular accounts on this website. It allows the President to communicate with citizens of the country. His audience totals more than 60 million people, many of whom are actively involved in discussions of his tweets. Twitter is a valuable tool that many politicians use to communicate with each other and with the audience (Gross and Johnson 751). This can be useful for creating an image and understanding of the situation in the state. However, sometimes the President blocks Twitter readers whose statements he does not like. Some of these people went to court for this reason, because they believe that this behavior of Trump violates their constitutional rights.
After the investigation, the President was banned from blocking people on Twitter: their ability to express their opinions is one of the manifestations of their right to freedom of speech. However, is blocking people on Twitter actually a violation of constitutional freedom? In my opinion, the court decision, in this case, was reasonable because every resident of democratic America should have the right to defend his or her position. However, it should not violate the rights of other people. This paper describes the pros and cons of the measures taken in relation to the President and discusses his and his followers’ rights.
Analysis
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most essential rights of modern people. It is protected by law and must be supported in every possible way. If everyone has an opportunity to speak out, while being ready to listen to the point of view of another person, this will benefit the whole society. It is especially important to be aware of this in relation to politics, as political issues are usually acute and cause an intense reaction of the audience. Abrams argues that “permitting to the government to limit the speech of some inevitably would risk the rights of all” (27). Thus, the studied case is of particular interest from the point of view of politics and sociology.
First of all, it is necessary to clearly understand what emotions Donald Trump evokes in his Twitter audience. Undoubtedly, he is a prominent and even defiant figure, so many people want to speak out about him. He freely expresses his position on various issues, and sometimes this causes a strong reaction of society. However, not all of his readers support his points of view, so they consider it necessary to express their indignation. These messages are not always addressed directly to the President: for some, it is important to participate in a discussion with other people in the comments.
Twitter makes it possible to block people, and most users sometimes use this option. However, the President’s account is not an ordinary case, as it is a significant media platform. Because of this, the people blocked by Trump considered his actions as a violation of their constitutional rights. Since America is a democratic state, its citizens have the right to express their thoughts freely. According to this position, the fact that the President of the country considers it possible to limit this freedom by blocking people on Twitter is illegal.
On the one hand, this is fair and logical, since people have the right to convey their thoughts to the world. Even if other Twitter readers or the President himself do not agree with some comments, they have the right to exist. Therefore, blocking users in this situation does not seem to be the right action on the part of Trump. On the other hand, some tweets of the President’s readers can be offensive. Unfortunately, the trend in social networks is that people feel protected and feel free to express even the most negative thoughts. Researchers state that often a cyber-bully does not affect a victim physically, but “still takes a heavy emotional toll on his on her victims” (Parker-Pope 10). People consider it possible to be cruel and even violent on the Internet, not thinking about the fact that they may offend and hurt others. Thus, the behavior of Trump’s readers sometimes violates his rights, and he should not tolerate insults against him.
This state of affairs makes the dilemma of blocking users difficult, as two parties are involved in the collision. Each of them has their rights and is responsible for their actions. However, some cases of Trump blocking users were overly impulsive. Perhaps, he did not want to enter into a discussion with people or was not pleased that their opinions differed from his. Therefore, in this situation, the decision made by the court is indeed legitimate.
Conclusion
Thus, the court’s ban on blocking Twitter users by Donald Trump seems to be correct and reasonable. From a moral point of view, this decision gives the people of America more freedom and confidence in their government. They feel protected and understand that their opinion is significant. People should be able to openly express their thoughts on such a large platform, as this will help them to be heard. Only in this case will the President achieve a high level of trust from the audience. Moreover, people will be able to freely share their thoughts, which can often lead to productive cooperation for the good of the state.
Works Cited
Abrams, Floyd. The Soul of the First Amendment: Why Freedom of Speech Matters. Yale University Press, 2017.
Gross, Justin H., and Kaylee T. Johnson. “Twitter Taunts and Tirades: Negative Campaigning in the Age of Trump. Political Science and Politics, vol. 49, no. 4, 2016, pp. 748-754.
Parker-Pope, Tara. “More Teens Victimized by Cyber-Bullies.” Cyberbullying: A Deadly Trend, edited by The New York Times Editorial Staff, The Rosen Publishing Group, 2018, pp. 10-12.