President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has controversially given his almost 32 million followers direct, unfiltered access to his thoughts and stances on issues. Now that users are getting blocked from the account for offending the president, a group of lawyers say his actions infringe on their freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter asking Trump to remove the blocks, adding that they constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

This request brings up some novel legal questions: Is access to a president’s tweets and the information they contain comparable to a public town hall, despite the fact that they are being posted on a private account? If so, can the president violate the Constitution if he prevents a user’s access? The lawyers’ letter states:

When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum form which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical; even if the space is privately rather than publicly owned; and ‘even when the limited public forum is one of [the government’s] own creation.’

On the same day the letter was written, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a briefing that Trump’s tweets ought to be taken seriously, thereby strengthening the lawyers’ argument. He “is the president of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

Users have been blocked for tweets as simple as covfefe-related jokes, and policy criticism. Holly Figueroa O’Reilly was blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after she made a joke about how the pope frowned at the president during his trip to the Vatican. She agrees that her blocking may constitute an offense to her First Amendment rights.

“This is an elected official trying to silence an entire sector of the dissenting populace,” O’Reilly said in opinion article. “This is what dictators and fascists do. This isn’t what we do here in America.

@realdonaldtrump isn't a regular citizen. He's @potus His tweets are public record. Unblock us this is unconstitutional #BlockedByTrump pic.twitter.com/a9Kw4KNTlv

— Andy Signore (@andysignore) June 7, 2017

Some, however, do not think cases like these would hold up in court. Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and blogger, told Vox that a blocked user is only being prevented from being able to “read what the president has chosen to vent on this particular site,” and not to speak about matters.

Other issues include the fact that the president has two accounts, including his @POTUS handle, and the fact that ultimately they are both hosted through a private company’s servers further muddle the legal picture.

While the debate over Trump’s Twitter blocks continues, some of his former followers have started a #BlockedByTrump hashtag, choosing to view the president’s move as a badge of honor.

Tonight I am honored to join an elite club … #BlockedByTrump. Apparently, I hurt the feelings of the "leader of the free world". SAD! pic.twitter.com/yQGyt2yBJE

— Rob Szczerba (@RJSzczerba) June 2, 2017

Is #BlockedByTrump just a hashtag or the Holy Grail of Twitter?

— Christoph Rehage (@crehage) May 30, 2017

If Trump doesn’t reverse the blocks or answer the letter, the Knight Institute says his administration should prepare for “legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of blocked individuals.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Trump Blocks Twitter Followers, Does he Violate the Constitution? appeared first on Law Street.

Wells Fargo, America’s biggest bank by market capitalization, has apparently been scamming its customers by opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts for years. High sales targets and promises of bonuses prompted employees to commit illegal cross-selling–which is when you sell multiple products or services to the same customers. In fact, 5,300 employees have been fired for “inappropriate sales conduct” over the past five years.

On Thursday the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined the bank $100 million, which is the highest fine the federal agency has ever issued. Additional fines of $35 million and $50 million each are to be paid to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and to the City and County of Los Angeles.

The director at CFPB, Richard Cordray, said in a press release:

Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses. Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.

Banking analyst Dick Bove said on Friday that it’s time to sell your stocks in the bank. He told CNBC: “What Wells has done is it’s saying that it’s treating customers badly, it broke faith with customers. There is no business in the world that can treat its customers badly and continue to expect to grow.”

To gain back the public’s trust after something big like this, especially with the 2008 financial crisis fresh in mind, Bove said Wells Fargo would need to do something drastic. For example, forgive all student loan debt. He said:

If you do that to customers who have student loans, they’ll stay with you for life. It requires something big, comprehensive and meaningful. Whether it’s that exact action or some other action that they come up with, I don’t know. I think it requires a significant step to re-establish faith with the consumer.

Many Twitter users reacted to the news.

“Hello Wells Fargo, I’d like to open a checking account, savings account and two credit cards.”
“You’re in luck. We’ve already opened them.”

— Fake Dispatch (@Fake_Dispatch) September 9, 2016

And one popular question is why no higher executives have been held accountable.

It’s weird how 5,000 front line Wells Fargo employees hit on similar scams without any wrongdoing by high-level executives.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 9, 2016

Essentially, employees at the bank boosted their sales by secretly opening new accounts and then funding them by transferring money from customers’ existing accounts. This often brought along additional fees and charges for the customers. It’s been reported that more than two million deposit or credit accounts were opened in this fashion. According to Reuters, employees were told that most customers used six financial tools but that they should push them into using at least eight.

According to CNN’s Douglas Rushkoff, the scale of these scams show that it’s not just the behavior of one bad banker, but rather a symptom of extreme capitalism in the banking world. Since banks make money from extracting funds from customers who want to invest or make transactions, they need to make sure those processes happen. During a time with slow growth though, the bankers need to create some kind of growth synthetically, out of fear of losing their jobs or missing out on a bonus. An easy way to do this is extract more money from people who already are customers, by offering new credit cards with higher fees or loans with higher costs or new terms that are worse for the customer but better for the bank.

Wells Fargo has been known for its ability to cross-sell multiple products to the same customers. In a statement on the bank’s website it said:

Wells Fargo is committed to putting our customers’ interests first 100 percent of the time, and we regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.

Wells Fargo has issued a statement regarding definitive settlement agreements. Read more: https://t.co/tCMOlGkfln. pic.twitter.com/DSEjFC1BpA

— Wells Fargo News (@WellsFargoNews) September 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Wells Fargo Recover From its Fraud Scandal? appeared first on Law Street.