麻豆影院

Colorado Law professor Helen Norton, author of the new book The Government鈥檚 Speech and the Constitution, examines the nature, complexities and limits of government expression 鈥� including whether the president may block you on Twitter.

Could you define 鈥榞overnment speech鈥�?

When I talk about the government鈥檚 speech, I鈥檓 referring to the speech of a governmental body like an agency or a legislature 鈥� think of the surgeon general鈥檚 report on tobacco or a congressional committee report 鈥� and the speech of an individual who speaks when backed by the government鈥檚 power, like the attorney general announcing official policy or a police officer interrogating a suspect.

What鈥檚 the difference between the government鈥檚 free speech right and an individual citizen鈥檚?

The First Amendment gives each of us the right to be free from the government鈥檚 unjustified interference with our speech. But because governments have to speak in order to govern, the First Amendment doesn鈥檛 forbid the government from speaking on its own behalf 鈥� from expressing its own views.

This explains why tobacco companies don鈥檛 have a First Amendment right to force the surgeon general to deliver their opinions on the benefits of cigarettes, and why the President鈥檚 critics don鈥檛 have a First Amendment right to share the podium at the State of the Union address. What the First Amendment protects is dissenting speakers鈥� freedom to write their own reports and hold their own press conferences.

Are there any unambiguous legal restraints on government speech?

Think of government threats that silence dissenters as effectively jailing them, or government lies that pressure targets into relinquishing their constitutional rights as effectively denying those rights. When the government鈥檚 speech inflicts those sorts of injuries, it violates specific constitutional rights.

But difficult questions arise when we disagree 鈥� and often we do 鈥� about whether the government鈥檚 speech has actually caused those harms.

May the President of the United States legally block you on Twitter?聽

Is there a distinction between 鈥榯he government鈥� and individual government leaders?

Often it鈥檚 clear when individual government officials speak for the government rather than in their capacity as private citizens 鈥� for example, when they issue press releases on government letterhead or otherwise specifically invoke their governmental power. On the other hand, government officials can and do speak as private citizens when they speak on matters unrelated to their governmental position 鈥� think, for instance, of a government official鈥檚 social media platform devoted to her thoughts about soccer or her summer reading list.

In your book, you note many examples of speech by U.S. presidents, including President Trump鈥檚 tweets. Does a U.S. president using his official Twitter account have the right to block a U.S. citizen from viewing his messages?

Not if he does so simply because he disagrees with them.

When a government official conducts official business on Twitter or other social media platforms, he is speaking as the government. This means his critics don鈥檛 have a First Amendment right to stop him from tweeting or to change his tweets to their liking 鈥� just as they have no First Amendment right to grab his microphone at a public speech.

But when a government official chooses to speak to the public about the government鈥檚 work through platforms like Twitter that permit the public鈥檚 commentary, the First Amendment forbids the government from excluding members of the public just because the government doesn鈥檛 like their views.

Are you following any interesting government speech cases?

A federal appellate court in July issued an opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, which involves the issues you raised in your last question. The bottom line is that the court correctly recognized that the First Amendment allows the government to speak to us, including through social media, but denies the government the power to silence or punish our dissent. This case gave the court the chance to remind government officials about the constitutional consequences of their expressive choices.

What got you thinking deeply about government speech?

I helped lead the Department of Justice鈥檚 Civil Rights Division during the Clinton administration, so I have some experience with the issues that arise when speaking for the government. After I entered academia, my early work in this area focused on the value of the government鈥檚 speech so long as its governmental source is made clear. As the years passed, I also became interested in the dark side of the government鈥檚 speech 鈥� the government鈥檚 destructive expressive choices. This led me to wonder whether and when the Constitution limits the government鈥檚 speech.

I hear you鈥檙e a volunteer firefighter as well as a law professor.

Shortly after my husband and I moved to the mountains, nearly 10 years ago, we were evacuated for the Four Mile Fire. Our neighbor, a volunteer firefighter, helped keep our home safe while we were gone, and we wanted to pay it forward. I never expected to become a firefighter in my middle years, but I鈥檝e learned a lot, and I鈥檝e seen and done things I never expected to see or do.

What do you make of the U.S. Forest Service鈥檚 Smokey Bear campaign?

The Smokey Bear campaign is one of the longest-running and arguably most effective examples of government speech of all time. Through Smokey, the Forest Service tells us that 鈥渙nly you can prevent wildfires鈥� 鈥� and nobody wants to disappoint Smokey!

Condensed and edited.