Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump

Last updated

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump
United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit Seal.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Rebecca Buckwalter; Philip Cohen; Holly Figueroa; Eugene Gu; Brandon Neely; Joseph Papp; and Nicholas Pappas, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; Sean M. Spicer, White House Press Secretary; and Daniel Scavino, White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President, Defendants.
ArguedMarch 6, 2019
DecidedJuly 9, 2019
Citation928 F.3d 226
Case history
Appealed toTrump v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
Holding
A social media account used by an American political leader is a public forum.
Court membership
Judges sitting Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Peter W. Hall, Christopher F. Droney
Case opinions
MajorityParker, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2nd Cir. 2019), is a case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the use of social media as a public forum. The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, are a group of Twitter users blocked by U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account. [1] They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum is a violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Contents

The plaintiffs were represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which itself was a plaintiff in the case. [2] [3] [4] Though the Knight Institute's Twitter account had not been blocked by Trump, [7] the lawsuit argued that they and other followers of the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account "are now deprived of their right to read the speech of the dissenters who have been blocked". [8] The complaint also argued that posts to the @realDonaldTrump account are "official statements". [9]

Background

On Twitter, blocked users cannot see or respond to tweets from the account that blocked them. As of July 2017, the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account had 33.7 million followers. [10] [11] Trump's tweets were often retweeted tens of thousands of times, and Trump frequently used Twitter to make policy statements, prior to being suspended from Twitter, [12] losing the 2020 election, and leaving the White House. [13] In June 2017, Spicer stated that Trump's tweets are considered "official statements by the president of the United States". In July 2017, Trump tweeted that his use of social media is "MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL". [10] [11] Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had filed a similar lawsuit in the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the Presidential Records Act for deleting tweets. [14]

A month prior to filing this lawsuit, the Knight Institute had sent a letter to Trump on behalf of two of the blocked Twitter users, asking that they and other blocked users have their accounts unblocked by Trump. The letter argued that Trump's personal Twitter account is a public forum, and that it is therefore unconstitutional to exclude dissenting views. The letter was copied to Spicer, Scavino, and White House counsel Don McGahn. [3] [15] The Trump administration did not respond to the letter. [16]

Lower court ruling

Oral arguments were heard before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on March 9, 2018. [17] On May 23, 2018, Buchwald granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for an injunction against Trump's blocking of Twitter accounts, ruling that such actions are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The court ruled that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is "a presidential account as opposed to a personal account", and blocking people from it violates their rights to participate in a "designated public forum". [18] Buchwald introduced the decision by writing:

This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no. [19]

After this ruling, the seven Twitter users that were a part of the lawsuit were unblocked by the managers of Trump's account. [20] In August 2018, the government filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [21] Also in August, the Knight First Amendment Institute sent a letter to the U.S. Justice Department requesting that the President comply with the Judge's ruling and unblock a list of 41 additional Twitter users, including Danny Zuker, MoveOn activist Jordan Uhl, health care activist Laura Packard, and journalists like Alex Kotch and Jules Suzdaltsev. [22] Those users were then unblocked by @realDonaldTrump. [23] Regardless, the Trump Administration appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the district court had subjected him to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of his own free speech rights. [21]

Circuit court ruling and subsequent developments

The Second Circuit issued its decision in July 2019, upholding the district court ruling. [24] [25] The Second Circuit determined that Trump used his Twitter account to conduct official government business, and therefore, he cannot block Americans from the account on the basis of their political views. [26] [27] The government was denied an en banc review by the full Second Circuit in March 2020. [28]

On the day of the Second Circuit's decision, former New York state representative Dov Hikind and candidate Joey Salads separately sued U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez within New York state federal district court for blocking them from her Twitter account, based on the ruling from the Second Circuit. [29] [30] In July 2020, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued Donald Trump again, on behalf of users who were blocked before Trump's inauguration, or who were not able to identify which tweet prompted Trump to block them. [31]

Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2020 to hear his appeal of the Second Circuit ruling. Trump's petition requested the Supreme Court to answer the question of "Whether the First Amendment deprives a government official of his right to control his personal Twitter account by blocking third-party accounts if he uses that personal account in part to announce official actions and policies." [32] Following the 2020 election, in which Joe Biden was elected president, Biden became the petitioning party for this case (now known as Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute) and other pending Supreme Court cases, replacing Trump in his role as president. [33] On January 19, 2021, the Justice Department filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to vacate the Second Circuit ruling on the grounds that Trump was soon leaving office and thus the case no longer concerned his account in its official capacity, thus rendering the case moot. [34] The Knight Institute responded by arguing that the Second Circuit ruling should remain, claiming "The case is moot because President Trump's repeated violation of Twitter's terms of service led that company to shut down his account and to ban him permanently from its platform. Because it was President Trump's own voluntary actions that made the case moot, the Supreme Court should leave the appeals court's ruling in place." [35]

The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the decision and remanded the case to the Second Circuit as to render the case moot on April 5, 2021. [36] [37] Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 12-page concurring opinion, but argued that Twitter and similar companies could face some First Amendment restrictions even though they are not government agencies. Thomas suggested that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act had perhaps been construed too broadly, and that Twitter, Facebook, et al., should be regulated as common carriers. [38]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to two similar cases in the 2023–24 term; O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed . Both cases originated with disputes over whether the personal accounts of state actors that have been used for government business can block members of the public from accessing these accounts. [39] The unanimous ruling in Lindke, held as per curiam in O'Connor-Ratcliffe, found that speech on personal accounts of public officials may be deemed state speech if the official has control of the social media account, and the content of the speech is related to their state activities, and thus may not block others or delete messages critical of that speech. Speech outside these bounds otherwise is considered within the private activities of the official and may be controlled. [40]

Impact

In response to critics who question whether Twitter should be considered a public forum, Knight Institute senior attorney Katie Fallow cited a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Packingham v. North Carolina , in which Justice Anthony Kennedy described social media as "the modern public square" and as one of the most important places for the exchange of views. That ruling, which was unanimous, struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites. [2] The Knight ruling has been cited as an important development in the use of social media as a public forum, and the tendency of government officials to try to block access to that forum or delete past communications. [41] The case was cited by a rapporteur public (advocate general) of a French appellate court [42] when deciding a similar case, [43] involving the French Immigration Office (OFII) blocking a Twitter user who had made negative comments about the office. [44]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Naomi Lynn Reice Buchwald is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed O'Connor</span> American judge (born 1965)

Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jameel Jaffer</span> Civil rights lawyer

Jameel Jaffer is a Canadian human rights and civil liberties attorney and the inaugural director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which was created to defend the freedoms of speech and the press in the digital age. The Institute engages in "strategic litigation, research, and public education." Among the Knight Institute's first lawsuits was a successful constitutional challenge to President Trump's practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Liberty Institute</span> American religious liberty advocacy organization

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization based in Plano, Texas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jon S. Tigar</span> American judge (born 1962)

Jon Steven Tigar is an American lawyer serving as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was previously a California state court judge on the Alameda County Superior Court from 2002 to 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugene Gu</span> American physician-scientist

Eugene Gu is an American physician and social media personality. While he was in medical school, he founded a company called Ganogen to develop methods to use fetal tissue implants in organ transplantation. Work at Ganogen had ceased when he started his residency in 2015, but in 2016 he was subpoenaed as CEO of the company by the United States House Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood following the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy.

Hassell v. Bird was a case heard within the California court system related to a court-ordered removal of a defamatory user review of a law firm from the Yelp website. The case, first heard in the California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Four, unanimously ruled in favor of the law firm, ordering Yelp to remove the review in 2016. Yelp refused to remove the review and appealed the decision. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court reversed the order in a closely divided 4-3 decision, stating that Yelp's position fell within Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a publisher of user material, and was not required to comply with the trial court's removal order. However, the part of the trial court's decision that ordered the reviewer to remove the defamatory review and pay a monetary judgement were left intact. The Supreme Court of the United States denied to hear the appeal, leaving the California Supreme Court's decision.

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

Donald Trump's use of social media attracted attention worldwide since he joined Twitter in May 2009. Over nearly twelve years, Trump tweeted around 57,000 times, including about 8,000 times during the 2016 election campaign and over 25,000 times during his presidency. The White House said the tweets should be considered official statements. When Twitter banned Trump from the platform in January 2021 during the final days of his term, his handle @realDonaldTrump had over 88.9 million followers. On November 19, 2022, Twitter's new owner, Elon Musk, reinstated his account, although Trump had stated he would not use it in favor of his own social media platform, Truth Social. The first tweet since 2021 was made in August 2023 about his mugshot from Fulton County Jail, but the account remained inactive until he tweeted again in August 2024.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">COVFEFE Act</span> Proposed U.S. government bill

The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act, House Bill H.R. 2884, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on June 12, 2017, during the 115th United States Congress. The bill was intended to amend the Presidential Records Act to preserve Twitter posts and other social media interactions of the President of the United States and require the National Archives to store such items. H.R. 2884 was assigned to the House Oversight and Reform Committee for consideration. While in committee, there were no roll call votes related to the bill. The bill died in committee.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<i>CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP</i> Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP, No. 1:17-cv-01228, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the archivist National Security Archive, allege that the defendants, President Donald Trump and elements of the Executive Office of the President, are in violation of the Presidential Records Act by deleting electronic messages on Twitter and using other electronic messaging applications without required archival records.

<i>Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California</i> 2020 United States Supreme Court case

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed. The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.

<i>Novak v. City of Parma</i> 2022 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Novak v. City of Parma, No. 21-3290, is a 2022 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granting qualified immunity to the city of Parma, Ohio, and its officials for prosecuting Anthony Novak over a Facebook page that parodied the Parma Police Department's page. The case drew widespread attention when The Onion, a satirical newspaper, filed a humorous but sincere amicus curiae brief supporting Novak's petition to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari; that petition was denied in February 2023.

Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205 (2024), were a pair of United States Supreme Court cases regarding the First Amendment. Both cases were filed by individuals who were blocked from a public official's personal social media account where the official sometimes spoke about official government business. The blocked individuals asserted that their blocks constituted state action subject to the First Amendment and civil rights litigation. In a unanimous decision in Lindke, the court held that speech made by a public official on a private social media account is not government speech – such that the official could not block users or delete comments related to that speech – unless the official had authority to speak on the government's behalf and purported to do so in the posts at issue. In a per curiam opinion, the court remanded O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the decision in Lindke.

References

  1. ↑ Hutchinson, Bill (May 24, 2018). "Here are the 7 tweets that led to landmark court decision against Trump". ABC News.
  2. 1 2 3 Wong, Julia Carrie (July 11, 2017). "Twitter users sue Donald Trump for blocking them over critical comments". The Guardian. Retrieved July 11, 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 Savage, Charlie (July 11, 2017). "Twitter Users Blocked by Trump File Lawsuit". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 12, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2018.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  4. 1 2 Neumeister, Larry (July 11, 2017). "Trump sued for blocking some of his critics on Twitter". The Washington Post . Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 11, 2017. Retrieved July 11, 2017.
  5. ↑ Knight First Amendment Institute (July 11, 2017). "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" . Retrieved October 25, 2018.
  6. ↑ Brannon, Valerie C. (June 5, 2018). UPDATE: Sidewalks, Streets, and Tweets: Is Twitter a Public Forum? (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  7. ↑ Abramson, Alana (July 11, 2017). "Donald Trump Blocked These People on Twitter. Now They're Suing Him". Time . Retrieved July 11, 2017.
  8. ↑ Sumagaysay, Levi (July 11, 2017). "Trump sued by people he blocked on Twitter". The Mercury News . Retrieved July 11, 2017.
  9. ↑ Heilweil, Rebecca (July 11, 2017). "Trump Violates First Amendment With Every Twitter User He Blocks, Lawsuit Contends". Forbes . Retrieved July 12, 2017.
  10. 1 2 Blunden, Mark (July 12, 2017). "Donald Trump sued for blocking people on Twitter". Evening Standard . Retrieved July 12, 2017.
  11. 1 2 Pestano, Andrew V. (July 12, 2017). "Advocates sue Trump for blocking Twitter users". UPI . Retrieved July 12, 2017.
  12. ↑ "Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump". blog.twitter.com. Retrieved January 21, 2021.
  13. ↑ Volz, Dustin (July 11, 2017). "U.S. free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users". Reuters . Retrieved July 12, 2017.
  14. ↑ Citizens for Responsibility v. Trump, 924 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir., 2019).
  15. ↑ Savage, Charlie (June 6, 2017). "Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek Reprieve, Citing First Amendment". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 6, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2018.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  16. ↑ Kastrenakes, Jacob (May 20, 2020). "Here are all the winners of the 2020 Webby Awards". The Verge. Retrieved May 22, 2020.
  17. ↑ Allsop, Jon (March 9, 2018). "In downtown New York, a First Amendment fight over Trump's tweets". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on March 9, 2018. Retrieved August 12, 2018.
  18. ↑ Wolfson, Sam (May 23, 2018). "Donald Trump cannot block anyone on Twitter, court rules". The Guardian. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
  19. ↑ Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, No.1:17-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y.May 23, 2018).
  20. ↑ Kan, Michael (June 6, 2018). "Trump Unblocks Some Critics on Twitter, But Will Fight Ruling". PCMag Australia.
  21. 1 2 "Government appeal" (PDF). Knightcolumbia.org. August 3, 2018. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  22. ↑ Binder, Matt (August 29, 2018). "President Trump forced to unblock dozens of Twitter users after court ruling". Mashable .
  23. ↑ Shepardson, David (August 28, 2018). "Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling". Reuters .
  24. ↑ Appeal decision
  25. ↑ Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F. 3d 226 (2nd Cir., 2019).
  26. ↑ Savage, Charlie (July 9, 2019). "Trump Can't Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules". The New York Times . Retrieved July 9, 2019.
  27. ↑ "Trump violated US constitution by blocking critics on Twitter, federal court rules". The Guardian. July 9, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2019.
  28. ↑ Spangler, Todd (March 23, 2020). "Donald Trump Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter, Appeals Court Affirms". Variety . Retrieved March 23, 2020.
  29. ↑ Bowden, John (July 10, 2019). "Ocasio-Cortez sued over Twitter blocks". The Hill . Retrieved July 10, 2019.
  30. ↑ Ingber, Sasha (July 12, 2019). "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Sued Over Blocking Twitter Followers". NPR . Retrieved July 12, 2019.
  31. ↑ Choi, Matthew (July 31, 2020). "Trump sued again for blocking people on Twitter". Politico .
  32. ↑ Velazco, Chris (August 20, 2020). "White House calls on Supreme Court to rule on Trump's Twitter blocking". Engadget . Retrieved August 20, 2020.
  33. ↑ Wolf, Richard (November 8, 2020). "President Trump's defeat may give Supreme Court a rest from personal, policy lawsuits". USA Today .
  34. ↑ "Government's Supplemental Brief (asking the Supreme Court to vacate 2d Cir. decision)" (PDF). January 19, 2021.
  35. ↑ "Justice Department Abandons Request that Supreme Court Hear Case Relating to Trump's Now-Defunct Twitter Account". January 21, 2021.
  36. ↑ Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, 141 S.Ct. 1220 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2021).
  37. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  38. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (April 5, 2021). "Clarence Thomas blasts Section 230, wants "common-carrier" rules on Twitter". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 11, 2022.
  39. ↑ Fritze, John (October 30, 2023). "Can a city official 'cancel' a constituent? How a fight over an emoji wound up at the Supreme Court". USA Today . Retrieved October 30, 2023.
  40. ↑ Sherman, Mark (March 15, 2024). "SCOTUS Rules Public Officials Can Sometimes Be Sued For Blocking Critics On Social Media". Associated Press . Retrieved March 15, 2024– via Huffington Post.
  41. ↑ Terry, Christopher; Schmitz, Stephen; Silberberg, Eliezer Joseph (2022). "A Cheerleader, a Snapchat, and a Profanity Go to Supreme Court but the Punchline in Mahanoy Isn't Funny". Communications Law & Policy. 27 (2): 79–101. doi:10.1080/10811680.2022.2055377. S2CID   249326630.
  42. ↑ CHARVIN, Baptiste (July–August 2023). "Services publics et liberté d'expression sur les réseaux sociaux : Du droit américain au droit français". Revue française de droit administratif. 39 (4): 719 – via Dalloz Revues.
  43. ↑ CAA Paris, 27 mars 2023, 21PA00815
  44. ↑ Landot, Éric (March 28, 2023). "Le blocage d'un " follower " d'un réseau social en ligne d'une personne publique… s'avère, selon la CAA de Paris, fort contraint". blog.landot-avocats.net (in French). Retrieved September 20, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.