Constitutionnels les gazouillis de Donald Trump?

Une cause bien intéressante sera entendue par une cour fédérale demain. À l'ère des réseaux sociaux de plus en plus de politiciens et de politiciennes rejoignent les électeurs à l'aide de Twitter ou de Facebook. Si personne ne peut le nier le recours à ses outils, leur gestion remet cependant à l'ordre du jour: peut-on, dans l'espace public, brimer la liberté d'expression des opposants? Le compte Twitter de Donald Trump bloquent régulièrement les interventions des critiques du président. Si le compte de Donald Trump, qui s'exprime comme président, est considéré comme un forum ou ou une réunion, le tribunal pourrait bien en arriver à la conclusion qu'il s'agit d'une manipulation de l'opinion publique.

 "But while the case focuses on Trump’s social media practices, it’s likely to have broader ramifications. As the Supreme Court observed last term, public officials around the country now engage with their constituents principally through social media. Exchanges between elected officials and their constituents that once took place offline routinely occur on Twitter and Facebook. It is settled law that the First Amendment bars government officials from excluding speakers from city council meetings, school board meetings and similar public forums on the basis of their viewpoints. A lot depends, now, on whether and how this law applies to digital-era technologies.

The case is a test for other foundational principles as well. In court, the president argues that the First Amendment permits him to block speakers who have affronted him, but he also contends that, even if he is acting unconstitutionally, the court lacks authority to order him to stop. Recycling arguments made by President Richard Nixon, he argues that an order barring him from blocking critics would represent an intolerable intrusion into powers the Constitution commits exclusively to him. (Precisely which powers, he doesn’t say.) The Supreme Court rejected similar arguments when Nixon made them, and Trump has an even weaker hand in this case. That he is advancing this argument at all only underscores that the case is not just about control of a social media forum but about deeper undemocratic impulses as well."

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-trumps-twitter-behavior-constitutional-a-court-will-decide/2018/03/06/0640f6b2-2155-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html?utm_term=.ee02538c847c