A federal judge ruled after a trial that former St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed violated a constituent's free speech rights when blocking her on the social media platform Twitter for making a critical comment.

 

St. Louis – A federal judge ruled after a trial that former St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed violated a constituent's free speech rights when blocking her on the social media platform Twitter for making a critical comment. The constituent, St. Louis resident, Sarah Felts, was represented by the ACLU of Missouri and Washington University School of Law's First Amendment Clinic.

The decision from the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri follows a federal Court of Appeals’ opinion upholding a judgment prohibiting former President Donald Trump from blocking critics from his Twitter account because of their viewpoint.

“Social media has become an important way to communicate our views to government officials,” said Anthony Rothert, Director of Integrated Advocacy for the ACLU of Missouri. “While these platforms allow robust debate on policy issues, debate is extinguished when a government official uses technology to silence those who disagree with them.”

United States District Judge John A. Ross rejected the contention by Reed’s successor that the President of the Board of Alderman Twitter account was private for personal use, writing:  

“At or near the time [Felts] was initially blocked, Reed’s public Twitter account had evolved into a tool of governance. [Later] while [Felts] remained blocked, the Account was being operated by Reed under color of law as an official governmental account. The continued blocking of [Felts] based on the content of her tweet is impermissible viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”

“Officials who use their social media accounts as a tool of their public office can’t selectively exclude the voices of those who disagree with them,” said Lisa Hoppenjans, Director of the First Amendment Clinic at Washington University School of Law. “We hope the court’s order will serve as a warning to other government officials who selectively block or silence dissenting views while using their accounts for purposes related to government business.”

Read full judgement.

###