Key Takeaways
- • U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) has ceased blocking critics on Twitter following a July 9 Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocking users violates First Amendment rights for public officials using social media as a public forum.
- • The appellate court decision, written by Judge Barrington Parker (a George W. Bush appointee), established that public officials cannot exclude citizens from online dialogue based on disagreement with their expressed views.
- • Cohen has adopted "muting" as an alternative compliance strategy, allowing him to hide users from his feed without blocking them entirely—a distinction the court ruling permits.
- • Cohen stated he considered litigation but determined the legal and financial costs of fighting the ruling were not justified, opting instead for immediate compliance by unblocking all previously blocked accounts.
- • The ruling applies broadly to public officials using social media for official purposes, with other Tennessee lawmakers following similar unblocking protocols in response to the appellate decision.
Summary
U.S. Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee announced on Friday that he has unblocked all critics from his Twitter account following a federal appellate court ruling that classified his blocking practice as a potential First Amendment violation. The July 9 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether public officials may legally exclude citizens from social media accounts used for official communications and public dialogue.
In his ruling, Judge Barrington Parker wrote that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees." This decision affirmed an earlier district court opinion and established precedent regarding the constitutional limits of social media moderation by government officials.
Cohen acknowledged his prior blocking practice during a Friday interview at his Memphis residence. He stated that while he had previously blocked non-constituent critics, he had "tried assiduously to avoid blocking people from my district no matter how rude, crude or socially unacceptable their tweets may have been." Weighing the costs and benefits of potential litigation, Cohen determined that compliance was preferable: "When it did get to the Court of Appeals, I decided the best thing to do is go ahead and accept that court's ruling that it's a public forum and unblock everybody. I unblocked everybody."
Rather than viewing the ruling as entirely constraining, Cohen has implemented a workaround strategy that remains permissible under the appellate court's First Amendment analysis. He now uses Twitter's muting functionality to hide critical voices from his feed while maintaining their technical access to his account—a distinction the court's reasoning permits. Cohen manages his Twitter account with assistance from a congressional staffer dedicated to social media management.
The ruling has prompted compliance across Tennessee's congressional delegation, with other lawmakers similarly unblocking critics. This decision reflects broader judicial scrutiny of government officials' social media practices and establishes a significant constraint on executive-branch control over online public forums where official communications occur.
In his ruling, Judge Barrington Parker wrote that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees." This decision affirmed an earlier district court opinion and established precedent regarding the constitutional limits of social media moderation by government officials.
Cohen acknowledged his prior blocking practice during a Friday interview at his Memphis residence. He stated that while he had previously blocked non-constituent critics, he had "tried assiduously to avoid blocking people from my district no matter how rude, crude or socially unacceptable their tweets may have been." Weighing the costs and benefits of potential litigation, Cohen determined that compliance was preferable: "When it did get to the Court of Appeals, I decided the best thing to do is go ahead and accept that court's ruling that it's a public forum and unblock everybody. I unblocked everybody."
Rather than viewing the ruling as entirely constraining, Cohen has implemented a workaround strategy that remains permissible under the appellate court's First Amendment analysis. He now uses Twitter's muting functionality to hide critical voices from his feed while maintaining their technical access to his account—a distinction the court's reasoning permits. Cohen manages his Twitter account with assistance from a congressional staffer dedicated to social media management.
The ruling has prompted compliance across Tennessee's congressional delegation, with other lawmakers similarly unblocking critics. This decision reflects broader judicial scrutiny of government officials' social media practices and establishes a significant constraint on executive-branch control over online public forums where official communications occur.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.