The three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit argued that annoyance and concern that the couple's posts were distracting others and interfering with others commenting wasn’t corroborated by the facts.
As in previous cases, the president's lawyers insist that the president's personal account is private and he should be allowed to exclude critics freely. They also emphasized that the act of blocking was not a kind of state action because it did not involve government power.
(Available without registration!) Alex Jones and his website Infowars made repeated claims that the 2012 murder of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was a “giant hoax,” possibly instigating a number of his followers to harass the families of the victims. Does the First Amendment protect Alex Jones’ speech?
"The critical question in this case is not the nature of the Account when it was set up a decade ago. The critical question for First Amendment purposes is how the President uses the Account in his capacity as President," Judge Barrington Parker wrote.
The founders of a pro-gun rights group that was blocked by a state politician on social media filed a lawsuit […]
A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that a local county official who temporarily blocked a constituent from her Facebook page violated the First Amendment, making this the first court of appeals ruling regarding whether the First Amendment applies to government-run social media accounts.