Politicians Cannot Block Social Media Foes, US Appeals Court Rules (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A federal appeals court said on Monday a Virginia politician violated the Constitution by temporarily blocking a critic from her Facebook page, a decision that could affect President Donald Trump's appeal from a similar ruling in New York. In a 3-0 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Phyllis Randall, chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Brian Davison by banning him for 12 hours from her "Chair Phyllis J. Randall" page.

The ban came after Davison had attended a 2016 town hall meeting, and then under his Facebook profile "Virginia SGP" accused school board members and their relatives of corruption and conflicts of interest. Randall had also removed her original post and all comments, including Davison's. Circuit Judge James Wynn rejected Randall's argument that her Facebook page was a private website, saying the "interactive component" was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination. Davison's speech "occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment," Wynn wrote.

Comments

What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the courts are allowed to block people, either?

If not, I wonder if they'll change their mind after a visit from the GNAA or such....

Re:What about the courts?

[AmiMoJo]

It only applies to politicians on their official pages, not to individuals or even a politician's personal account if they maintain a separate one.

The ruling was based on the politician's public page being considered a kind of public forum. It seems that the courts are finally starting to define which parts of the internet are a public forum, and it's worth noting that the ruling doesn't prevent social media platforms enforcing their terms of service.

Re:What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court is allowed to block cameras in the court room but courts ruled that the White House couldn't revoke press credentials that they control. Seems like a double standard to me.

Re:What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the White House could disallow cameras or reporters in general on premises.
They just can't throw out the ones that they don't like but allow the rest in.
You would only have a point if the Supreme Court allowed cameras from CNN but not from Fox, as-is you just failed to see the point.

Re:What about the courts?

[bobbied]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the White House could disallow cameras or reporters in general on premises. They just can't throw out the ones that they don't like but allow the rest in. You would only have a point if the Supreme Court allowed cameras from CNN but not from Fox, as-is you just failed to see the point.

Actually.... You are mostly right, with just a bit of clarification..

The White House was told it couldn't subjectively decide who gets a press pass and who doesn't. It was told that it needed an objective set of rules that it follows in this decision making process and not some "You are being rude!" subjective criteria for tossing a reporter to the curb. I believe we have a set of rules now for White House press pass holders, and the craziness of press briefings has abated at least a bit.

Personally, I think we should just go to a press pool with three reporters (News Paper, TV, Radio) for normal White House briefings and take a given number of questions in turn from all three, allowing one follow-up each. But I seriously doubt the President and the Press would go for that as both want the spectacle for different reasons.

Re:What about the courts?

[rhsanborn]

I don't think it goes that far. It's focused on the user, not the social media company. The user can't take actions to block and restrict based on viewpoint discrimination on their public pages. It doesn't obligate Facebook or Twitter to treat any particular parts of their services like public forums, though.

Re:What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a wrong headed ruling because NO part of the internet is a public form. It is all privately controlled. The whole form is the server owners private property and the 'pages' belong to their individual maintainer just as much as your house does. Even if I have a large house and invite let anyone in the door for a discussion doesn't negate my right to toss out those who are unruly or don't follow my rules ( even if they are arbitrary).

The only argument you can make for the internet being public in any way , is that parts of it's infrastructure ( like roads) are or were on some level developed with public funding. Some pages are maintained by government entities and paid for with public money. EVERYTHING ELSE is a private property.

If you facebook page isn't private property they you don't have to maintain it and you do not have the right to delete it.

Re:What about the courts?

[sycodon]

Could be a crack in the whole, "Facebook is private and can exclude and ban who it wants" thing.

If a politician can't block someone, how about a bureaucrat? Law enforcement? Can Facebook block someone posting on the pages of Politicians?What's the diff between a politician locking an Alex Jones and Facebook?

I bet it's just going to get messier from here.

Re:What about the courts?

[sycodon]

And even that standard is stupid.

The press is invited to the briefings. Only a limited number of the press get passes. You can bet there is no objective evaluation of who gets the passes and who doesn't. It's all going to be subjective, although admittedly carried out in a context of "tradition"...i.e. ABC has ALWAYS had a pass, etc.

I think the courts have generally over stepped their bounds with regards to the Executive Branch. One could argue that the Courts have no jurisdiction what-so-ever in this kind of matter because of the separation of powers.

Re:What about the courts?

[jellomizer]

The old term which I feel should be relevant for Politician is "Public Servant". We as citizens are THEIR BOSS, not the other way around. We grant elected officials the power to create laws, enforce them, provide judgement... They may be bosses of down their government bureaucracy, however we are their boss, who should be electing them in and out of their position.

Being that we are their bosses, they shouldn't have the right to block negative feedback on the professional pages.

Re:What about the courts?

[AmiMoJo]

It's not a question of who, it's a question of the nature of the thing being blocked from.

Re:What about the courts?

[sycodon]

One could have said the same thing about politicians blocking people...until the decision.

Make no mistake...this has opened a Pandora's Box of litigation.

It should be fun and interesting.

Re:What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

That statement makes no sense.

Please reformulate.

Re:What about the courts?

[bobbied]

I'm not in disagreement with you on this. I think the White House should have 100% say in who gets access to what and when for what ever reason they choose to do so as well. What I was trying to do was put a fine point on what the court ruling was, not what my opinion was.

Re:What about the courts?

[sycodon]

I agree.

Re:What about the courts?

[Immerman]

This ruling would seem to have no effect on the owners of the forums - rather it's focused on the *users* of the forum. If you're a user using the forum for official government business/public communication, then you are not allowed to unilaterally silence your political rivals there, any more than you can do so with ads on privately owned television networks.

If on the other hand it's the owners of the forum who decide to block your rivals - that's a different issue, but you should probably expect an investigation to make sure there was no collusion on your part.

Re: What about the courts?

[edris90]

Nope because you never enter anybody is properly all you do is ask them if they will send you things. And then the servers transmit that information out into the public infrastructure. You never enter their server at all all you do is send Messages to ask their servers for information. And then that server then sends you a message. Internet is a public forum made of privately owned equipment. The equipment may be privately owned but the entity known as the internet is public, buy measure of interaction if not intent. Anything connected to the internet is fair game. You can't connect to a public network and still claim privacy because it's unenforceable and not supported by physical reality

Re:What about the courts?

[Immerman]

The separation of powers is not there to keep the branches of government from stepping on each other's toes, quite the opposite in fact - it's there to make sure no one branch of government can get anything done without the cooperation of the others. The Executive has the power to command the military, but only Congress has the power to declare war, or pay the soldiers (admittedly, Congress has let the President get away with effectively declaring war unilaterally for a number of decades now), and the Supreme court can shut the whole thing down on constitutional grounds if it so chooses (though it needs a volunteer with standing to bring a relevant case against the government).

Re: What about the courts?

[edris90]

It's not a strict separation of powers it's a strategic overlapping of powers, enable any one part of the government to check the other to eventually Force the cooperation so we don't have parts of the government at war with each other instead of spending the money on helping citizen welfare.

Re: What about the courts?

[edris90]

An appropriate analogy would be you and another person are in the Town Square arguing . the Town Square is made up of various businesses and the surrounding parking lots ,access roads, and Landscaping. But Town Square is the only way across town. Therefore Town Square is considered a public thoroughfare. Even though the land is privately owned because it's the only way for the public to get across town. and therefore the greater need of the public is recognized and those routes become public. You and the person you are arguing with ar private people arguing on a public thoroughfare. And so neither of you have any greater right than the other to be heard or to silence the other. Internet interactions happened on across the public thoroughfare. Nobody ever actually enters anyone else's property. As its agents of the server, that choose to propagate the requests from the public network to their databases and then proactively transmit it back across. and so nobody enters your server ever they just ask your server if it'll kindly give it up.

Re:What about the courts?

[jonsmirl]

The end game here is for every politician's pages to simply have commenting suspended. What does that achieve?
If you can't ban people you can't ban spam posting bots so what's the point in having comments at all?

Re:What about the courts?

[dkman]

Yea. I'm thinking if you go post download links to all of the latest movies and they can't ban your "free speech" then what happens?

Then the "industry" (mpaa) starts going after the platform (facebook) and hilarity ensues. But I'm assuming that it's still OK to delete posts, but not banish people, which gets little done other than producing busy work for someone. If it's a moderated thing then posts don't show up until OK'd anyhow. Banning someone is just an easy way to filter out the trash.

So if I can't ban them then I just need a way to auto-decline or auto-delete for a blacklisted user. And a way to maintain a blacklist. Problem solved.

Re:What about the courts?

[swillden]

the Supreme court can shut the whole thing down on constitutional grounds if it so chooses (though it needs a volunteer with standing to bring a relevant case against the government).

It also needs an executive branch who is willing to abide by its rulings. We take that mostly for granted, since it's so rare in US history that the other branches have chosen to ignore court decisions. You can bet that the courts don't take it for granted, though. They know full well that they have to be seen as the reasonable, apolitical branch or they'll lose their power, because if the other branches ignore them and the voters don't care there's nothing they can do about it.

The history of this is fascinating. We all accept now that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, but it's worth noting that the Constitution itself doesn't say that, and it wasn't a foregone conclusion that it would be so. Our tradition of accepting SCOTUS as the interpreter of the Constitution began with Marbury v Madison and Chief Justice John C. Marshall's decision that the Supreme Court had no constitutional authority to enforce judicial appointments made by President John Adams, which his successor, President Thomas Jefferson, ordered not to be delivered. To understand the power of that decision, it's crucial to understand that Marshall was not only a close ally of Adams and political opponent of Jefferson, but that Marshall himself had personally signed the appointment commissions in question when he was Adams' Secretary of State. Marshall had even hired his younger brother to deliver the commissions.

So, the country pretty much expected Marshall to support his political ally and defy his political opponent by ordering the opponent to carry out the commissions he himself had worked to create and distribute. Adams certainly expected it. But Marshall instead took the position that the court had no constitutional authority to do so, despite the fact that Congress had given the court that authority in Jucidiary Act of 1789, ruling that portion of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional. It was the fact that he essentially opposed himself made the decision politically powerful and thereby effectively created the role of the Supreme Court as the body whose job it is to read the Constitution and decide whether executive and legislative actions accord with it. It was the carefully selfless nature of that decision that led everyone to accept it and established the precedent that the other branches fall in line.

But they haven't always, and the court would have no recourse if they were to stop. Only the voters could intervene.

And note that voter intervention assumes we continue the tradition of accepting the results of elections. The whole system rests on a foundation of traditional expectations. Things are the way they are because we all expect them to be that way.

Re:What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit, you're right. That was horrible. Sorry about ending the sentence with a preposition. Yeah, I need to rearrange the sentence. Let me try again.

It's not a question of who, it's a question of the nature of the thing being blocked from, asshole.

Re:What about the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget to log back in after trolling as an AC, sparky?

Trump is going to have to unblock thousands

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha the Traitor in Chief is completely screwed. The little make believe world he lives in might have to allow visitors.

"Trolls"

[110010001000]

The next thing is that the politicians will call these people "trolls". Basically in 2019 anyone who doesn't agree with your thinking is a "troll". Rather than ignoring, or actual discussion, you just label the person a "troll".

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll, Bully, Predator and finally Terrorist. Then you get shot.

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Un-American, then troll, then bully, ...

Re:"Trolls"

[AmiMoJo]

If that was likely they would have already banned all dissenters from their public appearances by declaring them terrorists or a security threat.

More likely whiners will keep inventing reasons why we are on the verge of becoming a communist police Nazi state.

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really next thing.

People disagreeing with politicians have been called un-American for a long time.

You don't support bombing civilians? That is so un-American!
You don't want to get fondled at the airport? Where is your patriotism?

Re:"Trolls"

[Oswald McWeany]

The next thing is that the politicians will call these people "trolls". Basically in 2019 anyone who doesn't agree with your thinking is a "troll". Rather than ignoring, or actual discussion, you just label the person a "troll".

There have always been "trolls" but in the past we called them "protestors", or "dissidents".

Re:"Trolls"

[110010001000]

You are dumb. There is a difference between calling someone a "troll" and a "terrorist" and also public appearances versus webpages. I know you really don't want people to point out the SJW BS that goes on, but too bad.

Re:"Trolls"

[squiggleslash]

That seems to be the case with moderators whenever someone says "Yes, but gender and sex are two related concepts that mean different things", or "There's no such thing in practice as an SJW, at least, not in terms of how you define it", or "Feminism is merely the concept that women shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against, and no it's not accurate to describe someone as a man hater just because they're a feminist", or...

...you get the gist, but I'm guessing you ignore those cases and focus on the small number of cases where it's applied to right wingers. Which is odd, because with the exception of Russian trolls, the minority of right wingers (minority meaning not majority, it's sad I should have to point that out) who promote evil (again, not the majority of right wingers, because nobody's saying all right wingers promote evil) aren't called trolls, they're called shitheads or something similar. We generally take them at their word that they're the people they say they are.

Re: "Trolls"

[Zero__Kelvin]

Living up to your SlashID I see. The definition of a troll is not "someone who disagrees with you and expresses it."

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you know, labeled as "Fake News."

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN: What do you have to say about the offensive and obscene comments on your Facebook profile?
Rep: Those are trolls. Not people. They are not affiliated to me or my campaign and the courts will not let me block them.
CNN: Why do you have a disproportionate amount of trolls on your page compared to Rep Our Gal.
Rep: There is nothing I can do!

CNN Article: Rep Every Man using trolls to create a hostile Facebook experience to silence women and minorities. Rep Our Gal strikes back against misogyny and racism.

Re:"Trolls"

[AmiMoJo]

Dumb and a an SJW mastermind member of the ruling class? Okay.

Re: "Trolls"

[DarkOx]

I am sorry but no you are the idiot. Trump might be lot of things but there is NOTHING to suggest he would condone mass murder. There is nothing to suggest that anything like what was possible in 1930s Germany could be effected in 21st Century America even if someone had the intent to do so.

You sir are deranged, and utterly lacking in perspective.

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Elected officials may be prevented from blocking people themselves, but the private platform can do it without batting an eye.

Thankfully, the fine upstanding officials in the US would never be interested in getting in bed with a rich and influential private corporation like facebook.

Re: "Trolls"

[Zero__Kelvin]

I literally just said that I didn't think it would happen so once again, I guess you can't read? ... and Trump is a narcissistic egomaniac with a Good complex. While I doubt he would do the whole gas chamber thing there are other ways to show that you are fine with people who are not white suffering and dying. Trump has already shown his indeferance to those lives on numerous occasions. In short, you are the idiot here, but like Trump you are too stupid to realize how truly stupid you are.

Re: "Trolls"

[Oswald McWeany]

Living up to your SlashID I see. The definition of a troll is not "someone who disagrees with you and expresses it."

I didn't say it was; nonetheless, there have always been trolls but they've not been called that.

Look at Lord Sutch, and his party; they were always considered a protest party- nowadays, we'd probably call him and the Monster Raving Looney Party "trolls".

Re:"Trolls"

[e3m4n]

I wonder how far this ruling can be interpreted. Obama was the first, but far from the last, to use a metric fuckton of fake followers in order to brainwash the masses that more people agreed with him than really did. It is basically exploiting human nature to side with what appears to be the winning side of an argument.

>saying the "interactive component" was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination.

by using fake followers can one not also argue that too is 'illegal viewpoint discrimination' by turning a 60/40 opinion into a 99/1 to drown out their voice?

Re: "Trolls"

[Zero__Kelvin]

No. We wouldn't. A troll is someone who seems merely to cause trouble, and says nothing about the courage of their convictions.

Re:"Trolls"

[hey!]

Just because people misuse the word "troll" doesn't mean trolls don't exist.

I think what's going on here is the spread of a lazy, intellectually flabby cynicism that takes it for granted *everyone's* trolling, all the time. Politicians, sure, but also journalists and even scientists. Everybody's playing an angle.

The great thing about adopting this stance is that you feel clever while being a fool; powerful when you're just a pawn. You can immediately feel right in anything you say or do without having to do anything that resembles mental work. You don't have to worry about facts, which are often inconvenient; or evidence, which is always full of nasty twisty traps. You'll never be troubled by uncertainty, guilt or shame again. Just figure out which side any statement is on then get behind it or push back.

If anybody offers anything less than an easy and unassailable certainty, that makes them untrustworthy. But lying is actually OK, as long as you're on the right side. You can tell when someone's caught this disease because they don't mind when their leaders are caught lying. They take it for granted everything is a lie.

This disease, by the way, has a name. It's called "authoritarianism".

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget Nazi as well.

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when your positions match up with people who self-proclaim to be Nazi's....

Re: "Trolls"

[Shotgun]

Trump shows signs of going the way of Hitler? How? By pulling our troops our of Syria? By recinding Obama's unconstitutional executive orders? You should get some professional help for that TDS you got going on there.

Re: "Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're giving Trump too much credit in the cognitive faculties department. Hitler was, amongst so many other things, a genius. Terrible human being, very misguided, but a genius nonetheless.

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically in 2019 anyone who doesn't agree with your thinking is a "troll".

Calm down there, we're only 8 days into 2019.

Sheesh.

Re:"Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

By some asshole while you're playing baseball.

Re: "Trolls"

[Oligonicella]

What YouTube channels you addicted yourself to to arrive at those views is disturbing. Re your current rating: you're either trolling or very seriously deluded.

Re: "Trolls"

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that people like you can't recognize the similarities between 1930s Germany and 21 century America is staggering. We are are not on the road towards an authoritarian police state; we are already there.

Ok, you heard it!

[Locke2005]

You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to TROLL TRUMP! So get off of slashdot, and start playing in the BIG LEAGUE, trolls!

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[kick6]

You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to TROLL TRUMP! So get off of slashdot, and start playing in the BIG LEAGUE, trolls!

As if the left hasn't operated like they've at least had the moral imperative if not the constitutional right up until this point.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[AmiMoJo]

It's so easy though! How can we be expected to resist?

Someone said he had small hands and we got a bizarre boast about the size of his penis at a public rally out of it.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I also have a WALLET RIGHT to be paid by TRUMP to TROLL SLASHDOT!

Also First Piss.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[Oswald McWeany]

You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to TROLL TRUMP!

I try not to bully intellectually challenged people so I shall refrain from trolling him.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[serviscope_minor]

As if the left hasn't operated like they've at least had the moral imperative if not the constitutional right up until this point.

Well, then the left understand the reasons behind the first amendment then, and if you haven't realised why then you really really don't.

Here's a partisan-free clue for you. Do not treat the party you voted for as "your team" to win no matter the costs. Do not treat the party you voted for as beyond reproach. If you're naive enough to think that the person you voted for is perfect then for the good of everyone please don't vote next time.

You have effectively two choices to vote for. Neither of them is going to represent you on everything across the board. Neither is going to stick to their promises. Neither is even going to hold a terribly coherent philosophical position. Both will listen to special interest groups of some sort. Neither will be especially well informed.

So yes, you should hold your representative to account. And sometimes that means you will wind them up enough to get a response.

IOW you have a much stronger moral imperative to troll whoever is currently the president than you do to wave a political party flag. How come you didn't realise this already? What do you think the first amendment is for if not saying stuff that will piss off those on power?

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[Anonymous Coward]

If by 'troll' you mean 'point out when he lies', then yes, they have operated like that every day.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's so easy though! How can we be expected to resist?"

So in other words, like Trump, you have no self-discipline and behave just like him.

Sadly, this is how Trump owns people. He baits them to behave even worse, due to his enemies lack of self-control. It's like arguing with a pig, he'll drag you into the mud and he likes the mud.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling wastes more resources than crypto currency mining, so stop ruining the planet in the name of a few giggles. ;-) errr ooops.

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[asdfman2000]

Someone said he had small hands and we got a bizarre boast about the size of his penis at a public rally out of it.

Excuse me, but that was at the GOP national debate. Not some generic rally. And it was fucking hilarious.

His political opponent, Marco Rubio, had been going on and on at rallies saying "Trump has small hands... and you know what that means, right?"

Re:Ok, you heard it!

[Anonymous Coward]

> TROLL TRUMP

Well, I'm certain there are quite a few other politicians, especially those not aligned with Trump, who might be affected by this ruling as well.

free

[Anonymous Coward]

if you subdivide the total bandwidth into private fiefdoms then it will all be owned eventually by large corporations and governments providing only advertising and propaganda. We shouldn't have to pay for that.

So tweets and such are a right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it should be illegal to block alt right douchebags

Time to reverse...

[Zurkeyon3733]

... All those politically motivated Social media purges and restore all those accounts! If you can't block people as the a-hole in chief, then you should be able to as some corporate dickweed either. FREE SPEECH is FREE SPEECH. Nobody, should be able to shut it down. ANYWHERE in the USA.

Re:Time to reverse...

[Zurkeyon3733]

*Shouldn't be able to as some corporate dickweed either.

Re:Time to reverse...

[Ogive17]

1st amendment applies to government censorship. Corporations can censor as they please.

Re:Time to reverse...

[Zurkeyon3733]

The point was.... That very thing, is what needs to change.

Re:Time to reverse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations can censor as they please.

Funny thing that. Google et al are censoring the fuck out of conservatives. At the same time they demand the FCC keep others from doing the same to them. Neutrality for me but not for thee.

Re:Time to reverse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing that. Google et al are censoring the fuck out of conservatives. At the same time they demand the FCC keep others from doing the same to them. Neutrality for me but not for thee.

It really shouldn't matter which side of the political spectrum you're standing on.

It should depend on if they are a platform (unable to censor, but given special legal privilege that makes them not responsible for the content) or a content generator (with the ability to censor offensive language or ideas, and thus responsible for those things presented).

Re:Time to reverse...

[Anonymous Coward]

1st amendment applies to government censorship. Corporations can censor as they please.

So, no cakes for gays?

OK.

Free speech versus privacy

[roccomaglio]

Does free speech give me the right to go into private meetings? How about a politician's home? They are not being blocked from expressing themselves, but being blocked from expressing themselves in a specific place. The question is are the online accounts private or public places. If the answer is online is a public place, then there is little privacy online.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Ogive17]

It's been about 5 years since I last touched social media, isn't it possible to lock it down so only friends can see your postings?

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Daralantan]

Not a similar situation, but this does remind me of something at my fiancé's school. There's some male teacher there that apparently it's a "meme" or whatever for the kids to go post google reviews of the school and call him a pedophile. Google reviews has TONS of reviews saying he's a pedophile and stares at little girls and boys.

Apparently it's because they want to take pictures of their review and show it to others for how funny it is. But it's weird that this is just sitting there untouched and undisputed.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Nidi62]

Does free speech give me the right to go into private meetings? How about a politician's home? They are not being blocked from expressing themselves, but being blocked from expressing themselves in a specific place. The question is are the online accounts private or public places. If the answer is online is a public place, then there is little privacy online.

If the page is being used as an extension of her office, or to encourage public participation or engagement, or is open for view or comment to the general public, then it is a public space. As such, as an elected official, she has no right to remove someone from that space as long as they are not causing a disturbance or acting in a disruptive manner, no matter what the message is (as long as it is germane to the topic being discussed or her position as an elected official). If you are holding a public meeting and I am given the floor and politely and professionally say something you don't like you have no right or recourse to remove me, just as she doesn't with her Facebook page.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

People does not have access to the politicians DM's so there is a possibility for private meetings if wanted.
If you use the account to make public statements you should expect to get public responses.

There are gray areas where one could argue that the politician should be allowed to post without getting responses from everyone.
For example if the politician never uses that particular account to make political statements and only uses it for personal announcements then one could argue that it would be a bit shitty if people harassed them on that account.

If the politician have multiple accounts that he or she uses to push a political agenda then one should expect responses from the public on all of them.
If the politician have an account where all the posts goes along the line of "Congratulations to my sister who just got married!" then it would be pretty shitty to bring politics to that account. (Unless the politician runs on a platform that wants to make marriage illegal for certain people, because then posts about marriage are political.)

What about when a politician uses a public account (The identity of the account is "Governor of [state]" rather than "[firstname lastname]") to post "personal" stuff?
"Hey, I just bought this nice [car brand]! It is great! Everyone should buy one!"
Then they are using their public position to fatten their own wallet.
In those cases I don't think they should be allowed to silence anyone who disagrees with the quality of [car brand].

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[jbmartin6]

I believe the distinction is when a FB page or Twitter account is used for "official purposes". If a FB is used for individual things like cat photos the owner can manage as they see fit. When it is used to make official announcements as a government official that right is lost, you cannot deny a citizen access to the government. Trumps' tweets, for example, are a bit of a gray area in this regard. it is his personal account, but since he is commenting on the presidency and official policy some argue it is now an official account and cannot block people. But you are right, how is blocking on FB different from ejecting from a public meeting? I don't know the legal logic for that one.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[roccomaglio]

If you are holding a public meeting and I am given the floor and politely and professionally say something you don't like you have no right or recourse to remove me, just as she doesn't with her Facebook page.

What if the person is not acting politely. Most of the banning has occurred for non-polite behavior. Interesting thing is that the politician could use groups and change from interactive communication to merely a push.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

As such, as an elected official, she has no right to remove someone from that space as long as they are not causing a disturbance or acting in a disruptive manner, no matter what the message is

But Facebook itself does, apparently.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[DarkOx]

The trouble is we are back to a "you know it when you see it" standard.

What if I politely and professionally suggest on Rashida Tlaib facebook page that her policy positions appear to be anti-Semitic and her language seems to be loaded with anti-Semitic dog whistles.

What if I still "politely" go a bit further and ask if she an Arab Nazi sympathizer of which there were and are many?

-See I would say those fair questions for the newly elected representative; others would say its disruptive or even harrasment.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

When it is used to make official announcements as a government official that right is lost, you cannot deny a citizen access to the government.

Yet Facebook itself does exactly that.

Say, if you are a Native American and FB thinks your name sounds fake", and you were unwilling to send Facebook your driver's license to "prove" it.

It seems like if we are going to say it's a right to communicate with your government reps on Facebook, then Facebook needs to stop blocking people from accessing Facebook.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the page is being used as an extension of her office ( which is to say it is being paid for with public funds)
or to encourage public participation or engagement ( in what, this sounds to ambiguous to make good law.) again paid for by public funds is a much better marker.
or is open for view or comment to the general public( really most peoples private Facebook page meet this category. My front yard is open for view by the general public but I still reserve the right to remove anyone from it I don't like there).

The point is a page is only publically owned if it is paid for with public money. (It really doesn't need to be much harder then that.)

More over even public pages need to be able to have 'reasonable' policies governing posts. If you have public page in use by the local electrical co-operative for discussion of HVAC issues you still need to be able to stop people from posting things that are factually wrong or conflict with public policy. If you are a school board you need the ability to stop people from posting things that undermine your authority to set policies within the school.
Such undermining must be done is some other form, it doesn't need to be tolerated on the public website, anymore then it needs to be tolerated on the school grounds.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[e3m4n]

I agree, I think the question is can facebook itself do an end-run to get around this. They seem to be some pretty big speech fascists lately. Lets use your example of the public meeting. The politician cannot remove someone, but can the building owner who happens to side with the politician?

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[XxtraLarGe]

-See I would say those fair questions for the newly elected representative; others would say its disruptive or even harrasment.

But it would probably be totally cool if you asked her if she "impeached the motherf*****" yet -- without the asterisks...

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[roccomaglio]

There is no official Facebook or Twitter account. They are accounts used by a politician. Should any politician be able to refuse my phone call? It is their official phone.

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[DarkOx]

Considering that seems to be common language and inline with the behavioral norms of those who support her. My guess is yes that would be totally cool and nobody would make a peep about it. Meanwhile my account would be suspended.

Re: Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Defining rudely is often a problem, many indignant politicians have demanded the removal of critics for spurious reasons, even assaulted them.

Re: Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, for example, all the White Conservative Republicans who complain that when asked questions about their affiliations with Nazi groups who whine about being harassed when called out on their discriminatory bigotry.

Oh wait, did you forget that?

Or perhaps you could explain why U.S. policy in the MidEast is based around fomenting conflict with Jews, Arabs, Turks, and Iran. Why we suck up to brutal oppressive regimes?

Perhaps you could even explain why a stupid sign justifies the murder of dozens of innocents by the Israeli occupation forces in Jerusalem?

Oh wait, maybe you can explain why you're only concerned about the supposed persecution of certain foreigners, but don't care about oppression in the US?

Heck, why not ask why we need 8 minutes of an orange turd screaming about his stupid wall?

Re:Free speech versus privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your standard of public space is highly disagreeable because it is not fully contemplated. Facebook requires identifying yourself and that results in your every action online being made available to Facebook. So Facebook becomes capable of knowing everything about you. What you read, what you eat, when you sleep, where you work, who you visit, if you are sick, if you are pregnant and so on. Allowing Facebook to be considered a public space will allow politicians to move actual real public events to Facebook. This will result in an personal information tax to participate in public government meetings that is clearly unacceptable.

I think the court's decision is sloppy and short sighted. While the politician's actions are detestable, declaring Facebook a public space is vile. There can be no huge permanent personal information fee required to participate in a political event in a public space. Declaring Facebook a public space is obviously not factually true and is incredibly antagonistic to our freedom and democracy. Would we allow a private business to stand at the entrance of a town hall and tag anyone who wished to participate with a permanent tracker in order to gain entrance? In the physical world this would be completely ludicrous but we are in danger of allowing just that because "internet."

Don't Agree with this Ruling

[dwillden]

Blocking an obnoxious user from your page doesn't infringe on their speech. They can still post their comments, be they valid or obnoxious and obscene trolling on their own page as well as at other locations. I may be missing something but I see this akin to asking a police officer to remove someone who is heckling and disrupting a city council meeting. They aren't removed for having an opinion in opposition, but for disrupting the event. Similarly someone who never contributes anything but hate filled trolling should be block-able. The Government employee or elected official isn't throwing the person in jail or even cutting off their ability to post their information on other venues.

And blocking one individual or even a few from posting on the elected official's page does not deny anyone else the ability to read official statements or quasi-official opinions that may be posted there. The media will still carry the statements. Even if the individual is a reporter, blocking them does not prevent other journalists from participating on the site and reporting what is discussed there.

But this is an issue that really needs a Supreme Court review.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[AmiMoJo]

The argument accepted by the court is that this page was akin to a public form, and the 1st applies to such forums in order to foster political debate and engagement. Hopefully someone can post the relevant case law that decided this.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these judges not violating my constitutional right to free speech if they do not have a Facebook page and do not allow me to post to it?

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

But one thing you don't seem to consider is that by blocking, one cannot see the content posted, you don't have to be slave from what media considers to be or not relevant

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

If I go to a town council meeting and start shouting over other speakers, I'm being disruptive and should probably be removed. If I'm banned from a public forum for stating - on the same basis as any other speaker - an opinion that the town councilors don't like, or asking about their conflicts of interests, then that's a pretty clear 1A issue.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument accepted by the court is that this page was akin to a public form

Yet Facebook routinely bans users for any manner of reasons, including not being willing to supply their real name & identity to Facebook.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

So people cannot be kicked out of a public forum even if they are obnoxious and off topic? In a public in person meeting an off topic rude person would not be tolerated and kicked out. It happens all the time. Just because the meeting is on a computer that no longer applies? I think that rules for on line forums should be more strict because people hide behind anonymity and are generally more rude an obnoxious on-line than in person.

Also only the person owning the social media account (or conducting the public form) can determine what is "rude and off topic". Allowing anyone else to determine this would be censorship of the politician themselves.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[110010001000]

A webpage is not a city council meeting. But I did see that you threw out the word "trolling" there. Good job. It must be trolling if they say something you don't like.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is not, officially, an arm of the public government.

Re:Don't Agree with this Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking an obnoxious user from your page doesn't infringe on their speech.

This wasn't the elected offical's page. It was hosted on the elected official's page. And if you host a virtual Town Hall on your personal page you can't block shit (why are you doing that anyway!!!?).

Social media just died for political use

[Anonymous Coward]

Every political opponent will now send swarms of trolls that will essentially disable the ability of any politician to reach an audience through social media. I am sure traditional media outlets will love this development since they will once again be able to control the narrative of any political discussion.

Re:Social media just died for political use

[Anonymous Coward]

Good.

Re:Social media just died for political use

[110010001000]

Actually the opposite: the traditional media outlets shut down comments once they realized that people were allowed to post differing viewpoints and actually had logical refutations of the garbage they were posting as "news".

Re:Social media just died for political use

[serviscope_minor]

the traditional media outlets shut down comments once they realized that people were allowed to post differing viewpoints

Well, yes it is so very you to believe that aggressivly spammy shitposting counts as a "differing viewpoint".

Re:Social media just died for political use

[AmiMoJo]

Where have you been for the past few years? This has been happening for ages.

Re:Social media just died for political use

[Oligonicella]

What you described them doing *is* part of controlling the narrative.

Re:Social media just died for political use

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you shouldn't do actual government business on social media. Seems to me that Town Hall used to provide the actual Hall, why does it not provide the platform for holding online meetings? And why is Town Hall allowing itself to be co-opted for the personal brand building of a partisan?

Re:Social media just died for political use

[Anubis IV]

Every political opponent will now send swarms of trolls that will essentially disable the ability of any politician to reach an audience through social media.

What? No, that’s nonsense. Worst case, they’d just disable the comments section/disallow posting to their walls, which, frankly, they should be doing already. Doing so categorically would not be a problem based on this ruling, since you’d be applying the block equally to everyone.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait ... what about blocking call based on phone #? Or not picking up the phone when you see it is another call from little Shummer?

So, just set up a spamming bot then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presto, all politicians social media pages are unusable! Great decision from the judge there!

Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I find interesting about this:

Facebook itself blocks people. It does it in a blanket fashion based on its terms of service, and it does it in a specific fashion if you do something they don't like and they decide you need to be stepped on. This has exactly the same chilling effect on political speech.

So there are people being prevented / forbidden from interacting on, or even reading, their politician's pages by Facebook, but here the court says the politician can't do that, because it is a 1st amendment issue. Will the courts say that Facebook can't do that either? Facebook is part of the mechanism that presents the information and facilitates the interaction – it doesn't seem like much of a leap from this ruling to telling Facebook it can't shut its doors on people (or telling politicians they can't use Facebook, because it's a limited speech forum.)

I wonder if, eventually, the courts will see the same argument, basically that Facebook has become a public forum and doesn't have the right to step on people's ability to interact with their politicians there.

On the one hand, Facebook is a private enterprise; but on the other, it's being used as a political pulpit, and that combination creates the lack of free access when people are prevented/forbidden to use the platform.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Oswald McWeany]

So there are people being prevented / forbidden from interacting on, or even reading, their politician's pages by Facebook, but here the court says the politician can't do that, because it is a 1st amendment issue. Will the courts say that Facebook can't do that either?

Very interesting point. If the courts say that these are official government pages and that politicians can't block people from accessing them, I don't see why Facebook can block them.

I'm sure Facebook could successfully argue that the rest of their media is under their control to allow/block publishing as they see fit, but they may have to allow public access to all politicians' official pages. It will be interesting to see how this is handled.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[AlwinBarni]

Does not seem complicated to me.

Facebook, a private company, created a medium to exchange ideas (communicate), they set up the rules on this new platform, a politician (being a public persona) cannot silence (ban) criticism, whilst a private person can - plain and simple.

For me this limited privacy for politicians (for the time of their service) is a fair price to pay for the power bestowed on them by people they (suppose to) represent.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Zero__Kelvin]

You don't seem to understand that the two situations are radically different. This is about the *government* and making sure it cannot infring upon free speech. The first amendment is about limiting the *government* from interference. Facebook is a private entity and is well within the law having entered a conctrual agreement with the user that they may do so via those terms of service to which you referred.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[DarkOx]

That is a stupid standard. it would be like saying if you ask me for a ride to the polling place in my private car and I say "No" I am disenfranchising you.

We can't set up standard in which private enterprises have to facilitate political interaction.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not complicated. The amendment in question serves to limit what the government does, regardless of platform. The rules and behaviour is facebook is a completely different matter legally as it is not the government.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[penandpaper]

have to allow public access to all politicians' official pages

That may not be enough because it's access and the 'reply' feature. Facebook and others may have to allow public access and public comment to all politicians' official pages if this decision and the other stand.

If those pages are protected while the rest of the site is under Facebook control; what is to stop those pages from turning into the 4chan of Facebook? Maybe before visiting one of the protected pages Facebook could give a warning; Beware! Scum and villainy of unprecedented degeneracy await you should you continue to Rep. Every Man's page. Proceed at your own risk.

Finally, a trigger warning I can support. Rep. Every Man is crazy!

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[DarkOx]

You don't seem to understand that the two situations are radically different.

Its not clear to me its "radically different" how/when does facebook become a government agent? Are they charging a fee to politicians to have facebook pages? Could I not argue that facebook (which clearly has got into the business of suppression some view points) does so in order to be friendly with certain politicians?

If a cop asks me to wear a wire and go see if you will sell me drugs that does not get them around the entrapment problem because I am now a government agent; I have the same limits on what I can and can't do to induce you to commit the crime the cop would have. facebook is pretty clearly under intense political pressure to moderate certain kinds of speech, where is the line when we can say they are agent of $POLITIANS campaign?

So you claim its "radically different" I'd argue we'll need to have that claim adjudicated in court.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Zero__Kelvin]

I guess you can't read. It was adjucated in court. That's literally the story here. Do you even think before you post?

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[SWPadnos]

I think this standard makes a lot of sense.

There's a difference between having me, a private person, refuse to let you ride in my car and having a city bus driver refuse to let you ride. That's the difference between Facebook banning someone and having the government do it.

Government has restrictions, which is good. Politicians are part of government. When they are doing "official" communications, they have more restrictions than they would on a truly private forum, since their being part of the government is more important at that point than the fact they're people too.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians should be prevented from using more restrictive media (Facebook, Twitter, et al) because they could otherwise choose to use that media exclusively, knowing the medium has prevented free speech from the opposing side (or trolls).

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[BringsApples]

Dunno... I'm thinking of a bar. You can walk into most all bars as a public citizen, free to drink your fill, and interact with the crowd, and just be there as is. However, if you start getting rowdy, the bar owners can toss you, even ban you. But just any other person that's there at the bar, even the band, can't toss you out. Those common people can call the cops on you, and the cops can come to the bar and remove you, but they cannot ban you from that bar.

Now let's say that there's a political rally at that bar, and it's open to the public. After some time, some people begin yelling unfavorable comments at the politician on stage. If that politician had those people removed because they were saying mean things, then that's one thing. But if those people start being disruptive and causes the management of the bar to decide to toss them (for reasons stated in their 'terms of using the bar'), then that's different.

How is this any different than the issue here? Facebook can ban people from facebook for violation of it's terms of service, but when a political figure creates an account for political reasons, then due to the way politics works, these accounts are to be treated like all other aspects of politics - it's public.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is not the government or and elected public official.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[AmiMoJo]

Just like in real life they can ban people for bad behaviour. If a politician has a public meeting at a convention centre and someone tries to use their air horn every time they open their mouth, they can be ejected and it's not a 1st amendment issue.

It's difficult to decide where the line is. For example protesters might want to display photos of aborted foetuses, which might make a lot of other people not want to or even be unable to participate. The line is somewhat fuzzy.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[e3m4n]

one can certainly cite this precedent when challenging facebook. If a politician has a facebook page for public forum and facebook bans someone, then by proxy facebook is violating their 1st amendment right. I would run this up the flagpole with the ACLU

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[DarkOx]

No I did read. The courts ruled that a politician if they are using FB as a public form can't block users. I have not seen any rules as to if facebook is allowed to prevent people from participation on a public figures page. As near as I can tell that issue was not really addressed; quite possible because the court feels its the same issue. In which case we just have to wait until someone who has had their account terminated by FB, files a suit.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Zero__Kelvin]

Again, this matter is settled and there is no issue. Facebook is a private company and they have the right to do so as contractually agreed by their TOS. The *politician* cannot block them, but Facebook can do so with impunity.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Immerman]

> I don't see why Facebook can block them.

I do - existing law restricts the behavior of public officials - they are employees and must obey "company policy"

You would almost certainly need a separate law to control the behavior of companies providing a forum that public officials are using are using as a public forum, even if the final result is the same.

That said, if the situation arose where a forum provider was obviously playing favorites in a "public" forum, I would expect an investigation into any illegal collusion on the part of the public officials involved, and quite possibly the passage of a law that at least outlawed any public official from using a "public" forum that engaged in such practices. The forum provider would be under no obligation to comply of course, unless they wanted public officials to be able to continue using their platform.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not. Politicians are private entities too. Politicians are not the government. I guess you never attended a university to understand the difference.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[asdfman2000]

For example protesters might want to display photos of aborted foetuses, which might make a lot of other people not want to or even be unable to participate.

Interestingly, Marine Le Pen (sometimes called France's "Trump") was prosecuted for doing almost exactly this (posting pictures of ISIS victims in discussions about ISIS and Islam).

I'm curious to see where the line actually settles for this in the Western world.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

taking this a step further. if it is ruled that facebook can't block me then is facebook allowed to put any restrictions in their terms of service? Seems like requiring me to agree to any contact in order to access the politicians facebooks would also violate my first amendment rights.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[neoritter]

Hasn't the court ruled that such things need to not impede others from doing their business? I vaguely remember a Westboro Baptist Church court ruling on this. They had to stay silent and couldn't block people, but otherwise were legally able to be where they were.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, I think as long as you were not carrying a megaphone at the time they couldn't keep you out... How that translates into the online world after you get banned for something isn't clear.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can the politician ask Facebook to block the users?

Maybe this request process can be automated. Do you think putting a "Block" button on the politician's page that automatically sends a request to Facebook to block the user would be OK? After all, it's just Facebook choosing to block users...

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

And you took exception to your being described as a condescending prick in another comment. Pretty much think that description nails it.

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, probably at displaying photos of victims of neo-nazi terrorist attacks. That one triggers way too many snowflakes who believe they're just "killing commies" because they can define any non-white person as a "commie".

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Zero__Kelvin]

Isn't that cute; I have my own little slashstalker!

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

But Facebook crafts its terms of service with a large and careful eye to "what the law and courts require".

So indirectly, they too are acting as agents of the government in this.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

This may indeed be settled for the time being, but I would not be surprised if this exact argument gains significant momentum and winds in court over the next few years.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Zero__Kelvin]

I also try to follow the law so evidently I am an agent of the government. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is now?

Re:Multiple levels of blocking

[mark-t]

Very interesting point. If the courts say that these are official government pages and that politicians can't block people from accessing them, I don't see why Facebook can block them.

I would say, in that case, that Facebook needs to alter its terms of service, and advise all members that any pages or comments that are hosted by facebook and are of a political nature for which facebook cannot lawfully prohibit access to any individuals because of freedom of speech laws are themselves a violation of facebook's own terms of service, and subject to removal by facebook at the earliest opportunity. Give users 8 week's notice, and then do a purge.

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, "settled law", just like "settled science" is a great way to terminate an argument without having to engage your own brain. By the way, if this issue was as settled as you'd believe, why bother with a similar scenario affecting Trump. Can't any other federal court just order him to follow this Court's ruling? But we know it's hardly settled, and the courts are avoiding the looming issue of whether FB can prevent constituents from contacting their Rep because they broke FB's TOS in their interactions on the Rep's page. You do realize this is a distinct possibility?

Re: Multiple levels of blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to understand that the declaration by the court that Facebook is a public space means that Facebook is bound just as a politician...or should be. It all hinges on whether Facebook is a public space. If it is, then Facebook would have no more right to prohibit speech than a chair manufacturer would have if their chairs are used in a town hall.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[AmiMoJo]

The argument accepted by the court is that this particular page is akin to a public forum debate, a kind of town-hall meeting, which is protected in the US.

The principal doesn't apply to almost anyone else or any other situation.

The left loves the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

When it works in their favor. The rest of the time, they'd love to burn it.

Re:The left loves the Constitution

[Holi]

Hey at least they show it some love, unlike the right.
They haven't shown it any respect since 9/11.

Facebook can't block trump

[Joe_Dragon]

Facebook can't block trump

Re:Facebook can't block trump

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, but they do block and/or ban constituents from access to their politicians. Which seems, now, illegal. All anyone on Facebook or Twitter has to do to get an account re-instated is claim that FB/Twitter is hindering their ability to interact with their elected officials.

Re:Facebook can't block trump

[bobbied]

Facebook can't block trump

Oh yes they can... A private company can do what it wants with its platform and in this case the Government cannot hold them criminally liable for it..

Unless you mean they cannot block Trump for practical and profit reasons... In which case, I agree. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot profit wise if they did do this.

Re:Facebook can't block trump

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but they do block and/or ban constituents from access to their politicians. Which seems, now, illegal. All anyone on Facebook or Twitter has to do to get an account re-instated is claim that FB/Twitter is hindering their ability to interact with their elected officials.

Which is complete and utter bullshit and would get tossed out of court immediately.

Here is the difference .. until such time as either of those is the only place you could interact with said politician, they are not essential to you exercising your free speech. They simply have no reason to give a shit, because your Constitutional rights aren't their concern.

A government official is bound by the first amendment, which is why they can't block you. Facebook and Twitter are free to ban you for their service, because they are not the only way you could exercise your free speech, and they aren't responsible for defending your free speech rights.

Government cannot limit your free speech, but private entities have no obligation whatsoever to give you a platform for it -- Facebook simply has no requirement to do anything to enable your first amendment rights, because they aren't subject to it.

If you come to my door peddling something, and I tell you to go away, you don't get to claim I've abridged your Constitutional rights -- because I'm not a party to them and don't give a fuck.

The politician can't block you, but the social media platform sure as hell can.

Don't they teach this shit any more?

Re:Facebook can't block trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook can block you from your elected politician because reasons?

Corporate dictatorship. Where corporations decide who get to participate in public spaces.

Re:Facebook can't block trump

[Anonymous Coward]

So a Democrat tries to block a voter from speaking up and they spin this as all about Trump?
Classic!

Re:Facebook can't block trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook can't block trump

Of course they can, if they want to.

Facebook is a company and can allow/disallow anyone on the platform.

Facebook is not a national or governmental service. There is no "right" to use Facebook. For anyone. Anywhere. Including Trump.

Wrong on so many levels

[sjbe]

Blocking an obnoxious user from your page doesn't infringe on their speech.

Not true at all, particularly when it comes to a politician in a public context. And just because you think someone are obnoxious does not mean your sentiments are shared. Furthermore the entire point of the first amendment is that you have an iron clad right to be obnoxious provided you don't endanger anyone or cause material or economic damange by doing so.

They can still post their comments, be they valid or obnoxious and obscene trolling on their own page as well as at other locations.

That's like saying someone cannot petition their leaders because they are able to say what they want in a cornfield where no one is listening. If someone wants public office they don't get to pick and choose who gets to express their opinion or where they express it. If they allow comments from some they have to allow comments from all.

I may be missing something but I see this akin to asking a police officer to remove someone who is heckling and disrupting a city council meeting.

You are missing something. A city council meeting bears no resemblance whatsoever to an online forum nor is the purpose of them even vaguely similar. An page like the one in question here is effectively a public debate with the public. The politician chose to have a public page and there is some baggage that comes with that. There is a difference between interrupting the ability of the elected officials to do their job and elected officials selectively suppressing the free speech rights of people they don't care for or whose opinions they don't agree with.

Even if the individual is a reporter, blocking them does not prevent other journalists from participating on the site and reporting what is discussed there.

So now you are promoting censoring the press too. You seem to think that blocking one individual reporter somehow is justifiable and that it would stop there. You think politicians should have a right to only participate with the parts of the press who agree with them? BAD idea.

And blocking one individual or even a few from posting on the elected official's page does not deny anyone else the ability to read official statements or quasi-official opinions that may be posted there.

If the point of the page is to simply post official statements then there is no need for ANYONE to be able to post comments. They don't get to pick and choose only the comments or people they like. Elected officials represent everyone, whether or not they agree with them.

Re:Wrong on so many levels

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly don't think most politicians using twitter or Facebook are seeking comments or want people to comment or interact with them, other than likes of course. They are trying to use these platforms for announcements rather than discussion. They only use social media platforms becasue that's were people are to see the posts.

I predict politicians will go back to old fashioned websites with no comment section. Supporters will share articles on social media and the discussion will happen under the account of the supporters who can block at will. As usual the internet will route around the issue.

Re:Wrong on so many levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking an obnoxious user from your page doesn't infringe on their speech.

Not true at all, particularly when it comes to a politician in a public context. And just because you think someone are obnoxious does not mean your sentiments are shared. Furthermore the entire point of the first amendment is that you have an iron clad right to be obnoxious provided you don't endanger anyone or cause material or economic damange by doing so.

Actually, the entire point of the First Amendment of the constitution is so that you can speak about things without legal repercussion. Being allowed to be obnoxious is a necessary evil that goes along with the freedom, but that's not the goal (else the concept of "fighting words" wouldn't exist). Being obnoxious saves you from legal repercussions regarding your speech, but it also saves the person who punched you from legal repercussions if you were sufficiently obnoxious.

Privacy not relevant here

[sjbe]

Does free speech give me the right to go into private meetings?

How is that relevant here? Where is the private meeting? We're talking about an online comment available to basically anyone in the general public.

They are not being blocked from expressing themselves, but being blocked from expressing themselves in a specific place.

The problem is that the politicians are discriminating who gets to express their opinion in that place/time. Allowing politicians complete control over every venue they interact with is a TERRIBLE idea. There is a compelling public interest in preventing politicians from blocking out people who don't agree with them in public venues. Either allow comments from all or from none but the point is they don't get to pick only the comments they agree with.

If the answer is online is a public place, then there is little privacy online.

Duh. Yes online is a public place and the politician should have no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

Re:Privacy not relevant here

[apoc.famine]

They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be visible and engage online, because it helps them get elected and fund raise. But they don't want to be called to task for doing things people don't like, or have to engage with people who don't like them.

Essentially they want to treat online engagements like ticketed donor dinner parties. Get praise and butter up the fans, all of whom are adoring. Unfortunately, the internet is a lot more like taking a stroll through a rough part of town, and apparently the courts think that's the way it should be. If you want to go there, great. If not, you're welcome to not do that.

What you can't do is have the "cops" clear out all the riff-raff before you go for a stroll.

Big win for biased liberal media

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can shut down conservative speach willy nilly. Good job stupid fucking liberal biased judges.

So is a twitter ban a violation of rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

If POTUS doesn't have the right to prevent you from interacting with politicians on social media, why in the fuck would some San Francisco weirdo with a martian sense of morality be able to do so?

Sounds like class action time.

Ogive17 is a bigot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tweet about a gay wedding cake, get blocked, and you will go batshit crazy.

Meanwhile, Diamond and Silk, and Candice Owens are blocked by Twitter and "Corporations can censor as they please"
When did you decide to become a racist, or are you agreeing with these blocks because you are more of a misogynist?

Liberals have jumped the shark with the gay wedding cake. I can legit call anyone of them that agrees with censorship a bigot, and have examples to back me up.
Congratulations!

I understand it. I even described it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing: if a politician puts themselves out to the public in a place where the public can't get to them, then they have proactively limited access.

So either the politician is erring in using Facebook because it is not a public space, or Facebook has become a public space and is erring in limiting access to the public.

One way or another, there's a 1st amendment problem here.

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Zero__Kelvin]

No, there isn't. In fact the whole point of the story is that there is no problem since the correct ruling was made. This is no different than if the politician was at a mall somewhere. If you think that sounds absurd, where did fuckface von clownstick announce his candicy for dictator ... I mean CEO of the US ... I mean President?

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how no one directly responds to your idiocy. #ResistMoreRetard #OrangeManBad #MommyAndDaddyDidntLoveMe

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Highdude702]

can you ever reply to ANYBODY that doesn't groupthink with you without turning into a snide condesending prick. Honest question.

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Zero__Kelvin]

What the *fuck*are you talking about? There is literally zero condescension in that post.

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Words they did not like were written in their presence. Hence, they were verbally attacked and had a social responsibility to lash out in personal defense.

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Zero__Kelvin]

... says the idiot responding.

Re: I understand it. I even described it.

[Highdude702]

Not even close, but if you have spent any time on this site... You will know what I'm talking about. But go ahead keep telling me what I think. You guys are good at that. lol

You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook, a private company, created a medium to exchange ideas (communicate), they set up the rules on this new platform, a politician (being a public persona) cannot silence (ban) criticism, whilst a private person can - plain and simple.

This opens the door for a politician to set up their "town hall" in a place that does the limiting for them. Which means it's not a town hall. It's a limited-membership private club. So, by choosing Facebook (or any other similarly not-open-to-the-public forum) they have limited political speech in a very concrete manner.

The way I see it, either Facebook has a problem, or the politician has a problem. There's definitely a problem.

Re:You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing preventing a politician from doing that now, within some constraints. What do you think lobbying is all about if not to have effectively have a limited-membership private club that specifically has the politician's ear? The problem isn't per se with that. The problem comes when politicians provide a mechanism that ostensibly is to allow all constitutes to engage that politician in dialog and then specifically bans them from communicating. This, of course, happens all the time in real life where people who mail a politician a lot with opposing views may have their mail unopened put into a junk pile. But if it came to the point of actually having the USPS block even sending the mail? That'd almost certainly also be illegal. A town hall where "anyone" can enter but they specifically ban people for political views? Almost certainly illegal too. But you could create a town hall of just supporters if you want because it's not expected that you must include anyone and everyone at every event. So long as you still provide a means for people to join in and are not substantially exclusive in all ways, the courts will probably okay what you're doing.

It seems clear to me that blocking on Facebook is much more the "open town hall", not a private club. Politicians can just not appear on Facebook at all if they don't like it, just like lots of other relatively public spaces. If they start paying off Facebook or a local mall where they speak to specifically exclude people, they're opening themselves and the private company to legal trouble. It's not enough that of its own accord a private company would choose to ban people so long as it's consistent, generally apolitical policy. Now, if that last point is what you're wondering about, I'd just note that malls are notoriously for having substantially "apolitical" policy that clearly aim to exclude large swaths of the population, and courts have been very reluctant (AFAIK) to do anything about it. I don't think what Facebook has done really is greater in scope of rules, nor meaningfully could it be said to have more effect (as malls were for a time a substantial influence in local areas).

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[LynnwoodRooster]

So if I use my account to interact with my politician, but also do things that causes FB or Twitter to close/suspend my account - then they are violating my ability to attend and participate in that town-hall meeting. It seems to me the best way to guarantee that FB/Twitter will not remove/ban/censor/suspend your account is to occasionally interact with an elected official.

The Jury is out until SCOTUS rules

[bobbied]

The US Appeals court ruling is but a small step here. Yes, it means FOR NOW their ruling must be followed, but I seriously doubt this won't be appealed to SCOTUS. Will SCOTUS take it up? Who knows, but somebody is going to ask them to.

As they say, it's not over until it's over and if recent history of US Appeals court rulings is any indicator, even from district 4, this isn't really over quite yet.

Re:The Jury is out until SCOTUS rules

[Holi]

If they don't overturn this then no incumbent politician will be able to control who attends their rallies.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[AmiMoJo]

1st amendment protections don't stop people ejecting you because of disruptive behaviour. Trying bringing your own megaphone to the next town hall meeting.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[LynnwoodRooster]

I can be 100% cordial to the politician; even a supporter of them! If FB/Twitter bans me for other actions, then they are explicitly stopping me from interacting with my politician. Now that there is a right to associate with a politician's official FB page, any action by FB that prevents me from doing so would be a 1st Amendment violation. So if FB finds my posts offensive and bans my account - then they are opening themselves up to a 1st Amendment lawsuit.

If trolls get too bad the pols will abandon FB

[schwit1]

But maybe that's the goal of some trolls all long.

No, it's not like that.

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be like saying if you ask me for a ride to the polling place in my private car and I say "No" I am disenfranchising you.

No. It's not like that at all. It's like me setting up the polling place inside a private building and not letting you in because... private reasons. In your example, you could simply get another ride and then hit the polling place. In the actual situation I've pointed out, you aren't allowed into the polling place at all.

We can't set up standard in which private enterprises have to facilitate political interaction.

Then the question is if we should allow private enterprises to be any politician's chosen means of political interaction with the public — because if they enable supposedly public access through private forums that limit membership because reasons, then "your" representative can become only "their" representative simply by choice of the supposedly public (but not actually public) forum.

No matter how you come at this, a problem exists.

Re:No, it's not like that.

[DarkOx]

You analogy is better and you make a good point. Lets try this one though.

Suppose you get your self banned from $ARENA for I don't know tampering with the smoke detectors or creating some other safety issues. Three weeks later $CANDIDATE rents the place out and schedules a town hall. Can security at $ARENA deny you entry?

So lets go back to facebook. You have been using your account for phishing and they ban you; but now you want to participate in the online town hall must they reinstate your account - create some sort of limited account where you can only access that one page? What?

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure the same people saying the courts and politicians never understand technology, got it right here, only because Trump highlighted this issue.

I really do not know when this right to be able to talk directly to any politician via media stream became a thing. This is the first time in history that any information channel a politician uses even has the capability for two-way communication. When we still had only radio and tv, no one was able to express anything back through those channels, and if they did so in a disrespectful manner in person, they would have been arrested or had a restraint.

This makes no sense, they can still hear all the information they need to hear, what is the problem here, exactly?

I honestly don't get this.

[Chas]

Freedom of association.

Private social media platform.

And simply blocking someone IN NO WAY takes away their freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

This ruling kinda sounds like it make it okay for me to simply force my way into the presence of a politician and just heap endless abuse on them.

Re:I honestly don't get this.

[RedK]

Private social media platform

The court just ruled it's a PUBLIC social media platform, insofar as Politician pages are concerned.

It's also been the logicial argument from the start : Twitter/Facebook have pretty much made their own virtual townsquares and can be argued to have "Monopolies" in their particular domains.

Remember when Slashdot was for Anti-trust laws being applied to big tech bullies ? The 90s were for sure better times than today.

Socialist media is a cancer

[WCMI92]

That is what I have always said. It is something that is completely unneeded. And it serves no purpose except for government hacks to rant so as to control the people, and of course for the most sacred of all cows: advertisers. Marketing is a very unnecessary profession, like lawyer and politician.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[AmiMoJo]

Well, yes, if they just arbitrarily banned you for no reason then they might be in trouble.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

[raymorris]

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law ..."
The US Constitution says what the federal government may and may not do, and how it is to be run. It doesn't specify what MishMash can do.

Last I checked, Facebook isn't Congress, and doesn't make laws.
The courts have expanded the text, pretending it says "the government may not in any way ...", which is kinda reasonable since the Constitution generally is about the federal government. Facebook is not the federal government. The Constitution doesn't tell us how Facebook needs to be run.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[SWPadnos]

Your argument is a reach, at best.

If your phone gets cut off because you don't pay the bill, the phone company is not infringing your first amendment rights, even though you are no longer able to call your chosen politicians. Similarly, if Facebook bans you for posting hate speech, they may close off this specific means of communication, but they are not preventing you from interacting with your chosen politicians. They're merely saying that you can't use their service to do so.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can possibly define "disruptive behavior" other than the person hosting the public form, twitter account, etc. I am sure every time a user has been banned by any politician is was for disruptive behavior.

Silly politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Only ISPs can block access to sites and services unilaterally. Since Net Neutrality was overturned, that is.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, let's say I am a fundamentalist Muslim, and I support throwing homosexuals off of roofs. I post as much on my Facebook page. Facebook bans me because of hate speech. Now I can no longer interact and share support with re. Rashida Tlaib, because I don't have access to her Facebook page to post my words of encouragement. So Facebook is now violating my 1st Amendment rights to interact with an elected official.

Okay, make it a two-step process losers

[Anonymous Coward]

So VSG GEOTUS President Trump publishes a list of Twitter (or other social media) accounts that he feels are not worth reading.

Each individual can then ban accounts on that list.

Shortly, there will be an automated method to ban accounts from lists set up by those one admires/respects/approves of/etc.

Censorship always loses. In this case, the censors are saying "you can't control your inputs" which is the same thing as saying "we're going to modify your inputs" (i.e., with beeps instead of fucks).

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[RedK]

Man does have a point. A politician cannot "block" you for being disruptive on his "public forum" page, but Facebook/Twitter can block you for being disruptive elsewhere on the site. Meaning in this case, Facebook/Twitter are by proxy blocking you from access to your politician's public forum.

This can't be either/or. Either Facebook/Twitter are public forums and thus need to be open to everyone based on 1st Amendment rights, or Facebook/Twitter need to simply shut down all Politician pages to remain private entities free to censor any one they dislike as they have been doing.

Any sort of "half measure" is just again the Left trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Also, why are you all over this discussion replying to every thread ? You're not even an American.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[AmiMoJo]

Try going to a physical public forum with a tin of red paint, a megaphone and an inflatable sex doll (inflated). See if your 1st Amendment rights stop them booting you out of the mall.

The 1st doesn't mean you have an unlimited right to troll as much as you want, it just gives you a great deal of leeway before that line is crossed.

In-equal application of the law

[Holi]

Candidates routinely reject or bar people from attending their rallies, either by selling tickets or simply tossing them out.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[RedK]

Try going to a physical public forum with a tin of red paint, a megaphone and an inflatable sex doll (inflated). See if your 1st Amendment rights stop them booting you out of the mall.

You're missing the point. If Trump is holding a Town Hall meeting at said Mall. But Mall cops are preventing from entering the Mall because I'm banned from it, then they are technically infringing the spirit of this ruling if not the letter. This is what people are trying to explain to you, but you are refusing to accept because it taints your anti-trump narrative.

The 1st doesn't mean you have an unlimited right to troll as much as you want, it just gives you a great deal of leeway before that line is crossed.

Except this ruling just said the opposite. You can troll Trump as much as you want, and there's nothing he can do about it. He has no right to block you. By proxy, this should extend to anyone doing the blocking, including the "hosts" of the public forum, aka Facebook/Twitter themselves.

I know this is complicated and you want to spin it to ORANGE MAN BAD! / EVERYONE ELSE GOOD!, but that's not how life works.

How do I ask to be unblocked?

[Brian Kendig]

When Florida State Representative Kimberly Daniels (https://www.facebook.com/State-Representative-Kimberly-Daniels-189630017733619/) asked the congregation the church that she leads (where she's an "apostle") to vote for HB303, which gives students and teachers the freedom to hold religious gatherings during school hours, I politely reminded her that it would give as much freedom to Muslims and Pagans and Satanists as it would to Christians - something that I'm completely okay with, but that I figured she might not be. In response, she blocked me from her official state representative FB page and deleted my comments.

Looks like, with this ruling, I should be able to ask her to unblock me?

That can go both ways

[rsilvergun]

folks who are actually trolling get equal time in a discussion. You get this with left wing candidates being "concern trolled" by the media a lot. Right now there's a ton of stories about how "concerned" CNN and MSNBC are with various aspects of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez's politics, daily life, staffing, etc. It's the political equivalent to "Netcraft confirms it!".

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[SWPadnos]

If you ask to borrow my cell phone to call Rashida Tlaib, and I decline to loan it to you, am I violating your 1st amendment rights?

False

[Anonymous Coward]

Google et al are censoring the fuck out of conservatives

Not true.

Just disallow all feedback

[JeffOwl]

Politicians worried about this will just shut down all feedback on social media if they can't silence trolls. They should probably be doing this anyway.

Re:Just disallow all feedback

[nadass]

Blanket blocking of feedback is wholesale violation of First Amendment "Free Speech" rights, and a violation of various feedback-required public discourse laws and rules across all government branches. To this day, many municipalities are getting sued for NOT providing transparency and NOT actively soliciting public feedback... especially as it relates to local matters such as sexual predators moving across school grounds, design reviews for sun-blocking skyscrapers, construction practices in residential neighborhoods, and changes in electoral jurisdictions (which was itself overturned by SCOTUS).

Re:Just disallow all feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

Blanket blocking of feedback is wholesale violation of First Amendment "Free Speech" rights, and a violation of various feedback-required public discourse laws and rules across all government branches.

No, it's not. If they start blanket blocking all comments, it would make their use of social media akin to making public addresses. People can't shout at their televisions during the State of the Union and expect a politician to hear it, same thing here.

Raymorris is a bigot or misogynist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bake me a cake for a gay wedding. Oh, that censorship isn't allowed?

Your argument holds no water after liberalism has jumped the shark. Or you think censoring people like Candice Owens is fine. Is that because you are a bigot or because you are a misogynist?

Patiently waiting to hear your answer.

Re: "Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Righ

[edris90]

How does one opposed A malignant regime without being disruptive? are we to never fix problems because it would require us to disrupt those problems, as well as the comfort of the people maintaining those problems?

Facebook or trump can't block users posting

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Doesn't matter how many avenues of communication are available, that's irrelevant to 1st Amendment protection.
2. Site ban != being banned from posting on a politicians page.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[LynnwoodRooster]

Have the Courts ruled that I have a right to use your cellphone to contact Rep Tlaib? If they have - then yes, you have to give it to me.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[AmiMoJo]

As I already said, if they banned you from the mall for taking a dump on the floor or something, your 1st amendment rights aren't going to get you back in even if a politician is there.

You can't troll Trump all you want, your rights don't extend to entering the Oval Office with a megaphone whenever you please. The courts are currently deciding where the boundaries are, and it seems that his Twitter account and some other pages may qualify as public spaces. Even then, Twitter can still ban you for ToS violations.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[JesseMcDonald]

So Facebook is now violating my 1st Amendment rights to interact with an elected official.

No, the elected official—not Facebook—is violating your 1st Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" by insisting that all interaction occurs through Facebook, a forum which is not open to all that official's constituents... unless, as is usually the case, the official does accept other forms of interaction equivalent to Facebook, in which case no one's constitutional rights are being violated.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[SWPadnos]

Agreed. If the courts would make such a ruling (or Congress would pass such a law), then I would be required to comply.

This decision doesn't look like that to me though. This decision says that the politician has to treat Facebook as it does any other public forum, and may not censor people simply because they have a different viewpoint. It doesn't look like it says anything about what Facebook must or must not do.

To quote part of a prior post of yours:

Now that there is a right to associate with a politician's official FB page, any action by FB that prevents me from doing so would be a 1st Amendment violation.

I think this is where you went wrong. The decision doesn't provide a "right to associate with a politician" on Facebook. It says that politicians can't censor people on their public FB (and presumably other social media) pages:

Circuit Judge James Wynn rejected Randall’s argument that her Facebook page was a private website, saying the “interactive component” was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination. [emphasis mine]

The judge is only saying that the politician did something wrong, not that there are any more or less "rights" as far as Facebook or its users are concerned.

Only single murders

[Anonymous Coward]

there is NOTHING to suggest he would condone mass murder

That's right. He only condones single murders as long as the others are only injured. Prime example would be Charlottesville. "Only" one person died from that racist incident where there was blame to both sides.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[LynnwoodRooster]

So if the issue is the politician banned someone, could the politician cut a deal with Facebook/Twitter to ban people of a certain demographic or political ideology? For example, I don't like blue-haired people communicating to me (as I opposed the blue-haired wing of politics). So I tell Facebook or Twitter I plan to leave their platform because I'm not happy with blue-haired people. So then Facebook or Twitter ban blue-haired people from my feeds - and so I stay on Facebook and Twitter.

I haven't banned the people - Facebook/Twitter has done so.

Re:"Violated the First Amendment Free Speech Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, just like "I'm attending a town hall meeting" is the sovereign "get out of jail free" card when you mow down a crowd of schoolkids in your car.</sarcasm>

Even if we accept that Facebook has an obligation to support your account for political reasons, that doesn't mean you're exempt from normal rules when doing so.

How this will work

[AHuxley]

Social media will say they are a "publisher" and still have the political ability to use their staff to ban, shadow ban, report and remove accounts.
Then demand to be treated like a "utility" on all content they feel can to be published so they have none of the legal problems of been a publisher.

The problem was the need to make social media grow and allow so many US gov, city "official website" to get set up on social media.
Now everyone can claim they are interacting with their gov and that all random "comments" are a petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The next part is some US states/cities have powerful public documents laws eg what was the Florida Sunshine Law.
Suddenly social media cannot remove, ban comments as people have a right to see what their city/state is doing and such public comments/documents can be requested.
A city is now "on" social media and social media has the full responsibility of the paper work just as any city office. Open to the public.
The ability to request public documents and that is the random "comments" on any city/police/gov social media "page".

This could have all been avoided by:
A US city/state/federal gov gets its own GUI web site to look after/accept comments/post news.
Social media stays a "utility" and has no need to ban/remove comments as they are just connecting users, like an ISP. Full protection of the law.
The fail was social media wanted to become a publisher of users comments. Now they have less of that powerful utility protection.
The next total fail was social media wanted to become a city/state gov site. Now they are the keeper of US gov paperwork. No utility protection and the full US rights of the people to interact with their local/city/gov have to be respected.

Should have stayed a utility selling ads and just connecting people.
The branding prestige of all the US city and gov interaction on a site now comes with the full responsibility of gov :)

Concentration camps are real

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLPUSSY. He had ZERO qualms with Hispanic concentration camps which are still running this very minute. You can't suck his cock hard enough, can you?

Anti-Trumpers: take a deep breath

[Anonymous Coward]

This ruling is from the 4th circuit. It's not much more solid than a ruling from the 9th circus. These appeals courts are not the final arbiters - they're the pre-game show where the Supreme Court allows issues to stew (ferment?) until they think the root issues involved are sufficiently exposed and it's time to take a serious issue away from the kiddies and decide it for real.

This matter will ultimately go to the US Supreme Court; this particular case may not get there, but the issue eventually will. The SCOTUS will not just be eventually tasked with deciding if leftists can troll a politician they HATE in his/her own social media feed, but will be deciding the more basic principles, and they will be faced with the problem of whether they themselves are willing to expose themselves to this behavior by abusive trolls.

You may well think it's sooooper cool to trol Trump today, just as many of you thought it was great for Obama to do everything with his pen&phone (by executive order rather than actual legislation). Eventually however this sort of thing tends to rebound when the party in power changes, just as all of Obama's junk has been crumbling.