Do you think the US Court of Appeals made the right decision in Knight Institute
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
Do you think the US Court of Appeals made the right decision in Knight Institute v. Trump? Why or why not? How does it fit with the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning free speech that you’ve read this week? Be sure to briefly explain in your own words the facts and ruling of the appellate decision in your posts.
There are two parts to this discussion. First, make an initial statement addressing your argument. Your statement must justify your argument and must be about 250 to 300 words. Second, make a response to another post in this discussion. Your response must be about 150 to 200 words and must substantively respond to your classmate’s argument.
The post that needed to response:
In Knight Institute v. Trump, Trump was sued by everyday American twitter users who he blocked for expressing opposing political views to his own on his twitter page. This free speech group associated with Columbia University felt that this violated these individual’s 1st amendment rights. I do believe the US Court of Appeals made the right decisions in Knight Institute v. Trump. Donald Trump is the President and there is evidence showing that his Twitter was used as not only a forum for him to respond to people that disagreed with him, but as a place where he updated the American people on policy changes. If an individual is blocked by him, they will not be able to receive the news from the source but instead get it second hand or later on. That also limits that individuals ability to show support or express concern for that policy because they will be unable to respond to Trump’s tweet. We see everyday people block one another on social media for disagreements, political or not, but when someone is in a position of political power and is providing the country with important updates regarding our government and our lives, the circumstances must change. This is no longer just missing out on someone’s status update, it is missing out on real time news as well as being excluded from partaking in the conversations that often occur under many of Trump’s tweets. The freedoms we are granted in the 1st amendment are some of the most fundamental principles we, as Americans, pride ourselves on. Excluding individuals from virtual conversations on important issues is a direct attack on their freedom of speech.
We have seen that our freedom of speech has expanded over time. Despite what the 1st amendment says, the Founding Father’s intentions most likely did not envision the kind of freedoms we are allowed today in terms of speech. The Founding Father’s could also not have imagined the age of technology we are living in now where public forums are not just physical places, but virtual spaces as well. That being said, virtual spaces must be included in this ongoing push for freedom of all types of speech, aside from a few exclusions that are rightfully excluded for the safety and dignity of the country. We see this era of a push for free speech begin with Brandenberg v. Ohio. Most people would agree that the messages of the KKK are disturbing and awful, but the court ruled that unless that speech is harming anyone or inciting lawless action the KKK can speak on their beliefs. We see this idea of unpopular and even disturbing views being allowed to be expressed be solidified in Snyder v. Phelps. We have become more accepting of the LGBTQ+ community over time, but those individuals who choose to remain homophobic are still able to express their discontent. The idea now is that we place such an importance on this freedom that it should only be limited when absolutely necessary. It would be odd if the court ruled in favor of Trump in this case because of how the court, our legislature, and our society leans to favor our freedom of speech. Since fighting numerous wars against countries that limited this freedom it seems as though Americans feel it necessary to be able to express whatever we believe without the fear of consequences and that that ideal is now rooted at the heart of the American democracy.