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.
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".
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.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.