Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101