•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Abstract

This Note seeks to answer the following question: How Twitter, its users, and the President can participate in a multi-party negotiation to decide on terms to enact into a user agreement for Twitter for the purposes of ensuring citizens' First Amendment rights are not violated if the President blocks them on Twitter. Part II of this Note discusses the role of the government when they suppress speech on public forums. It additionally addresses how Trump's actions of blocking citizens were declared a violation of their First Amendment rights. Part III raises the issues citizens face when naming the President as a party to a lawsuit, and the viable defenses that can be raised. It further provides the basis for the first lawsuit in this matter and addresses why litigation will not solve this issue. Part IV provides how a multi-party negotiation between representatives of Twitter, its users, and the President would work, showing strategies and examples with a tweet by a citizen whose Twitter the President blocked. In addition, Part IV discusses potential concerns around having the President as a staple part of the negotiation, but ultimately discerning the arguments. Lastly, this Note aims to address how the proposed multiparty negotiation would combat issues for Twitter, its citizens, and the President without the need for litigation.

Keywords

Communications Law, Dispute Resolution, First Amendment, Presidency, Executive Branch, Science and Technology Law, Politics (General), Discrimination, Social Group Issues, Social Media

Disciplines

Civil Rights and Discrimination | Communications Law | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | First Amendment | Law | Law and Politics | President/Executive Department | Science and Technology Law

Download

Share

COinS