Defamation / Reputation, Hate Speech, Political Expression
Awan v. Levant
Closed Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
A District Court in Missouri ruled that a State Representative violated one of her constituent’s First Amendment rights when she blocked him from her Twitter account. Reisch, a State Representative for a district of the Missouri House of Representatives, blocked Campbell for retweeting criticism of Reisch’s position on a matter of public interest. Relying on Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump the Court found that the interactive space of Reisch’s Twitter account constituted a public forum, as it was used in her official government capacity, and that the blocking was a content-based restriction intended to suppress a political viewpoint.
Reisch is a State Representative for a district of the Missouri House of Representatives.
Campbell is a registered voter in the district Reisch represents.
Both are Twitter users. Reisch’s Twitter handle is @CheriMO44, which refers to the 44th District of the Missouri House of Representatives, for which the Defendant is the elected representative. Further, she describes herself on her page as “Christian, MO State Rep 44th District, Mother, Grandmother.” She created the account when her candidacy for the District was announced. Until her win in the election, the tweets were chiefly related to her campaigns. After the successful election, she tweeted mainly about her work as a state representative. It should be noted that she does not consider Twitter as a mode of communication with her constituents.
The case related to a political opponent tweeting something critical in response to one of Reisch’s tweets which Campbell then retweeted on his own Twitter page. Campbell subsequently received a notice that he had been blocked from Reisch’s Twitter account.
Upon such blocking, Campbell brought a claim against Reisch under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of his free speech rights under the First Amendment.
District Judge Brian C. Wimes delivered the judgment of the Court.
The primary issue before the court was whether Campbell was deprived of his free speech rights under the First Amendment. Another issue was whether Campbell’s deprivation occurred under color of state law
The Court noted that §1983 provides a remedy against any person who deprives others of his/her constitutional rights under the color of state law [Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 130 n.3 (1992)]. For a claim under §1983 two elements must be demonstrated: (1) deprivation of right was secured by the Constitution; and, (2) deprivation was committed under color of state law [Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999)].
Whether or not Campbell was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution?
For deciding if Campbell’s free speech rights were violated, the Court had to determine: (1) if Campbell’s retweet was protected speech; (2) if the interactive space of Reisch’s Twitter account is subject to forum analysis; (3) if the interactive spaces of Reisch’s tweets are a designated public forum; and, (4) if Campbell’s exclusion from the interactive spaces of Reisch’s Twitter account violated his constitutional rights. [Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 797 (1985)]
Campbell argued that his free speech rights were violated when he was blocked on Twitter due to his political views inferred by the retweet, which restricted his access to Reisch’s account. Whereas Reisch argued that her Twitter account is neither public property nor a private property dedicated to public use and hence Campbell’s access ws not protected by the First Amendment.
The Court observed that the speech in the present case does not come within the purview of obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, or speech integral to criminal conduct which would exclude it from First Amendment protection. However, considering that “social media is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media,” the Court held that the speech at issue is protected [Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, 237 (2d Cir. 2019)].
Regarding the second sub-issue, the Court observed that forum analysis applies where a speaker seeks “access to public property, or private property dedicated to public use.” Further, public property is that “which has immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, has been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions” [Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469 (2009)]. Private property dedicated to public use is that which is not owned by the government, but that which is still controlled by the government, particularly with respect to whether the “government can control access” [Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)]. Further, principles pertaining to forum analysis are also applicable to a metaphysical forum [Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, 237 (2d Cir. 2019)]. Considering the principles and facts surrounding the tweets (like the creation of a Twitter account, control of Reisch over the tweets and kind of tweets), the Court concluded that the interactive space of Reisch’s tweets is controlled by her in her capacity as a state legislator, i.e. under government control even absent legal ownership, and hence is subjected to forum analysis.
The Court then turned to whether the interactive spaces of Reisch’s tweets were a designated public forum. For this, the Court looked into the uses of her Twitter account, and recalled that the touchstone of a designated public forum is government intent, which is inferred from several objective factors, including policy and practice, the nature of the property, and the property’s “compatibility with expressive activity” [Bowman v. White, 444 F.3d 967, 991 (8th Cir. 2006)]. Resich created her Twitter account when she launched her political campaign and has subsequently used it to tweet about her political positions and to receive communications from the public. Therefore, the interactive space constituted a designed public forum.
Having determined that that the interactive space was a designated public forum, the Court then had to evaluate whether blocking Campell from the spaces was content-neutral, necessary to serve a significant interest, and narrowly drawn to achieve that interest. [p. 14] According to Bowman, “the government may enforce a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction only if the restriction is necessary to serve a significant government interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.” Since Reisch blocked Campell after he retweeted a tweet critical of Resich’s political position on a matter of public importance, the court concluded that the the blocking was due to his critical expressive activity, which could not be considered content neutral. To support this opinion, the Court cited Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 687 (4th Cir. 2019) which found that “[v]iewpoint discrimination is apparent, for example, if a government official’s decision to take a challenged action was impermissibly motivated by a desire to suppress a particular point of view.” As viewpoint based discrimination is inconsistent with the First Amendment, the Court concluded that Campell’s constitutional rights had been violated.
Whether or not Campbell’s deprivation occurred under color of state law?
To satisfy the color of law element, it must be shown that the official acted in his official duties. Considering its earlier conclusion that Reisch operated the Twitter account in her capacity as a state legislator, the Court concluded that Reisch’s actions were under color of state law.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that Reisch deprived Campbell of his constitutional rights under the color of state law pursuant to §1983, and that Campbell is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
The Court upheld previous case law and expanded expression by prohibiting state representatives from blocking people from their respective Twitter accounts. The Court relied heavily on Knight First Amendment v. Trump, which found U.S. President Donald Trump’s twitter account constituted a public forum as it was used in his official capacity as President, and hence was government controlled. The Court also cited Davison v. Randall to find that “[v]iewpoint discrimination is apparent, for example, if a government official’s decision to take a challenged action was impermissibly motivated by a desire to suppress a particular point of view.” The general trend in case law indicates that politicians in the US may not block critics from their official social networking sites.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.