Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age

America's public sphere has become much more accessible since the writing of the First Amendment.  In 1791, forbidding abridging the freedom of speech of our nation seemed plausible when our nation was no larger than 14 states.  The prominent voices (meaning the voices that were allowed to be heard) of the public sphere in this time were made up of a large number of like-minded people.  The prospect of not being able to silence those who had differing viewpoints may have seemed like common sense.

Today, our country is much larger and much more connected.  With the rise of the internet and social media, an increasing amount of diverse voices are being heard.  Common people can be heard just as much as those in power.  While we still struggle with xenophobia and intolerance in America, social media is a way marginalized voices get heard.  The immediacy of online connection lends itself to the discussion of current events and government notifications.  Whether we like it or not, social media, especially Twitter, has become a political sphere.
Donald Tr*mp's Twitter is a prime example of how social media has changed political rhetoric.  The president's controversial Tweets have become the primary source of communication between him and the public.  His Tweets, while often riddled with typos and falsities, spark political debate.  Tr*mp is not the only politician to use Twitter in this way, but he has definitely served as a catalyst for the rise of intense, political discussion on Twitter, making Twitter a sort of public forum  If we use this language to describe the social media cite, the First Amendment plays an interesting role in the digital age. 

"The Supreme Court has long held that, when the government establishes or operates a public forum like a town hall, the First Amendment bars the government from excluding disfavored voices or silencing disfavored views. "  

When we apply this concept to the political discourse on Twitter, we realize that each Tweet represents its own forum of people expressing their viewpoints.  So, if we were to say, silence others for not agreeing with us, it conflicts with our first amendment rights.  Therefore, when we think of the president's behavior on Twitter, we cannot be sure that he is not violating the First Amendment.  If an account is sharing information Tr*mp deems to be disrespectful to his image, he blocks them.  He has blocked numerous authors, corporations, journalists, and other members of liberal media.  

In one instance, journalist Andy Signore Tweeted, "I am so damn sick of bully @realDonaldTrump taking words out of context to act out his agenda of fear, corruption & bigotry. #NotMyPresident" Within an hour, the President had blocked Andy's account.  Would Andy's Tweet qualify as a redress of grievances?  More simply, when Tr*mp blocks people on Twitter, is he violating the First Amendment?

According to a 2019 ruling that stated "Because President Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts," his actions do violate Freedom of Speech laws, and he is not allowed to choose who gets to receive information from the White House.  The president has appealed this ruling.  

While I agree with the court's ruling, I am left questioning;

How can we apply the First Amendment of 1791 to Twitter in 2020?  How do we apply a doctrine written before this time of mass, instant communication?  What is Freedom of Speech in the digital age?