Court rules that politicians who block people on social media are violating the first...

[midian182]

You might remember last month’s story about the free-speech group that is suing Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users. Now, it looks as if the Knight First Amendment Institute has a better chance of succeeding, after a federal court in Virginia ruled that politicians can’t block people on social media.

The lawsuit revolves around Phyllis Randall, chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, who used her Facebook account to ask constitutions for feedback. Software consultant Brian Davison sued Randall after he was blocked for posting an accusation of corruption against the Loudoun School Board.

“She wants the public to believe she’s transparent but then to ban critics,” he said.

Despite lifting the ban after 12 hours, US District Judge James Cacheris ruled that as Randall was acting as a public official, she violated the First Amendment by "suppressing critical commentary regarding elected officials."

Randall claims she banned Davison because he mentioned the family members of elected officials and that she wouldn’t ban anyone who criticized only the officials themselves.

The Chairwoman’s lawyer, Julia Judkins, argues that as Randall doesn't use county resources to manage the Facebook page, it can’t possibly represent the government. But the Judge maintains it was a case of viewpoint discrimination.

“The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards,” the Cacheris wrote in his ruling.

While Randall isn’t facing any type of punishment, the implications of the case are far reaching, especially when it comes to Trump and Twitter.

"We hope the courts look to this opinion as a road map in holding that it is unconstitutional for President Trump to block his critics on Twitter,” Alex Abdo, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the Wall Street Journal.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70366-court-rules-politicians-who-block-people-social-media.html

 

[Kotters]

That seems a bit ****ed up.

 

[psycros]

Another day, another hypocritical left-wing abuse of power. Can't wait to see it overturned. Facebook is not a public forum - its a private service where users have full authority to control their accounts as they see fit. By Judge Cacheris' own logic it would be unconstitutional to suppress FB posts from anyone, including ISIL, the KKK., BLM and other hate groups. Its long past time that these activist judges get the boot, and Trump needs to start cleaning house. After eight years of the biased media and courts doing all they could to suppress free speech that didn't support the Obama agenda this is beyond the pale. Its time for every American to stand up against fascism, a liberal invention that needs to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

 

[wiyosaya]

who used her Facebook account to ask constitutions for feedback.

Its "constituents" not "constitutions"

My bet is that if this goes to SCOTUS, it will get overturned. Posting an unproven allegation could be slanderous or libel since it is unproven, and SCOTUS has ruled that speech that falls under the guise of slanderous or libel is not protected free speech.

 

[wiyosaya]

Another day, another hypocritical left-wing abuse of power. Can't wait to see it overturned. Facebook is not a public forum - its a private service where users have full authority to control their accounts as they see fit. By Judge Cacheris' own logic it would be unconstitutional to suppress FB posts from anyone, including ISIL, the KKK., BLM and other hate groups. Its long past time that these activist judges get the boot, and Trump needs to start cleaning house. After eight years of the biased media and courts doing all they could to suppress free speech that didn't support the Obama agenda this is beyond the pale. Its time for every American to stand up against fascism, a liberal invention that needs to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Even just once, it would be nice to have an argument that is not steeped in the usual political rants.

 

[stewi0001]

Just a reminder ;P

 

[MoeJoe]

Triggered

 

[MonsterZero]

Another day, another hypocritical left-wing abuse of power. Can't wait to see it overturned. Facebook is not a public forum - its a private service where users have full authority to control their accounts as they see fit. By Judge Cacheris' own logic it would be unconstitutional to suppress FB posts from anyone, including ISIL, the KKK., BLM and other hate groups. Its long past time that these activist judges get the boot, and Trump needs to start cleaning house. After eight years of the biased media and courts doing all they could to suppress free speech that didn't support the Obama agenda this is beyond the pale. Its time for every American to stand up against fascism, a liberal invention that needs to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Facebook is a publicly traded entity. How is not allowing someone to block your government profile on a public website fascism? Escalate quickly much?

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Either:

#1 Don't have a Social Media account

#2 Fill it only with friends - don't add people you don't like.

#3 Make a Fake Account.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

So what you're saying is that if you want to force Trump off Twitter, just remove his BLOCK BUTTON by court order?

 

[Scshadow]

So political campaigns and candidates will now be forced to allow the opposition's point of view be advertised on their platform. Just cause people are blocked from another user doesn't mean that can't still have an opinion, they just don't get to advertise their opinion through a more popular account. No freedom of speech is being blocked.

 

[insect]

So political campaigns and candidates will now be forced to allow the opposition's point of view be advertised on their platform. Just cause people are blocked from another user doesn't mean that can't still have an opinion, they just don't get to advertise their opinion through a more popular account. No freedom of speech is being blocked.

Here's an analogy to what you're saying and why this argument will fall deaf on courts:
A man is standing in front of the white-house with a bullhorn shouting things (doesn't matter what things), then a politician comes and takes the bullhorn, preventing his speech from being heard by as many people (thus, limiting the speech).

He was in a popular spot, sure to get lots of attention, but a politician came and took away his tools used for speech. He can still use his mouth, but it doesn't carry as far.

The solution here is not to take the tool, but limit it's use either through 1) not making bullhorns (e.g., don't setup a twitter) or 2) pass legislation that limits bullhorn use, such as a noise-restriction law (e.g., pass a law that lets politicians block people on social media).

I suspect #1 will be the go-to. No one makes a politician setup twitter/FB/etc. They can go back to good old town-halls and news outlets where thoughts can be fleshed out and discussed rather than a one-way street (e.g., I tweet and then ignore the people I represent).

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Another day, another hypocritical left-wing abuse of power. Can't wait to see it overturned. Facebook is not a public forum - its a private service where users have full authority to control their accounts as they see fit. By Judge Cacheris' own logic it would be unconstitutional to suppress FB posts from anyone, including ISIL, the KKK., BLM and other hate groups. Its long past time that these activist judges get the boot, and Trump needs to start cleaning house. After eight years of the biased media and courts doing all they could to suppress free speech that didn't support the Obama agenda this is beyond the pale. Its time for every American to stand up against fascism, a liberal invention that needs to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Even just once, it would be nice to have an argument that is not steeped in the usual political rants.

I agree - but this crap about judges making rulings however they want has got to stop. When Trump made his immigration ban it got blocked by a judge until the SCOTUS got around to hearing the case and all 9 of them said Trump was in the right. When the supreme court is unanimous you know there's no room for interpretation.

Here in Wisconsin the normal way a law gets implemented is 1) law gets passed by house/senate/governor signing. 2) Liberal judge blocks it. 3) supreme court overturns it because there's nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It's super easy for judges to block laws here because our capitol (Madison) is one of the most liberal places in the Midwest.

We even had an investigation into our Governor for doing some illegal coordination with a PAC where people got their houses raided by cops with guns - offices overturned - documents all subpoena'd etc. When it finally got in front of the state supreme court they said not only did he not do what you're accusing him of - what you're accusing him of ISN'T EVEN ILLEGAL. No matter - it created headlines for months and democrats got their hands on all the republican's donation records.

This sort of thing is starting to undermine democracy. Read it - it's a scary story, but one everyone should know. (apologies for the source, but the story hasn't gotten much coverage and the WSJ article requires a subscription. )

 

[namesrejected]

3.

So political campaigns and candidates will now be forced to allow the opposition's point of view be advertised on their platform. Just cause people are blocked from another user doesn't mean that can't still have an opinion, they just don't get to advertise their opinion through a more popular account. No freedom of speech is being blocked.

Here's an analogy to what you're saying and why this argument will fall deaf on courts:
A man is standing in front of the white-house with a bullhorn shouting things (doesn't matter what things), then a politician comes and takes the bullhorn, preventing his speech from being heard by as many people (thus, limiting the speech).

He was in a popular spot, sure to get lots of attention, but a politician came and took away his tools used for speech. He can still use his mouth, but it doesn't carry as far.

The solution here is not to take the tool, but limit it's use either through 1) not making bullhorns (e.g., don't setup a twitter) or 2) pass legislation that limits bullhorn use, such as a noise-restriction law (e.g., pass a law that lets politicians block people on social media).

I suspect #1 will be the go-to. No one makes a politician setup twitter/FB/etc. They can go back to good old town-halls and news outlets where thoughts can be fleshed out and discussed rather than a one-way street (e.g., I tweet and then ignore the people I represent).

So, am I welcome to come into your yard and start protesting your lawn if I don't like it? I'm sure you would call the cops and I would be arrested. This is a distortion of law, what about the politicians free speech of "blocking" someone?

The problem is people get so freaking butthurt over the simplest things, and more and more people are becoming sociopaths, needing all the attention. Basically this, if banning someone from a facebook account is wrong then why does facebook offer the option?

 

[insect]

3.


So, am I welcome to come into your yard and start protesting your lawn if I don't like it? I'm sure you would call the cops and I would be arrested.

Correct, because a law is in-place to protect private property (see #2 from my analogy).

This is a distortion of law, what about the politicians free speech of "blocking" someone?

The problem is people get so freaking butthurt over the simplest things, and more and more people are becoming sociopaths, needing all the attention. Basically this, if banning someone from a facebook account is wrong then why does facebook offer the option?

Because you're confusing public with private. Politicians work for the public and we pay them. Everything they do, we own, or they can quit. You probably signed a similar contract at your work (they can review your work, browsing done at work, etc. or you can not work there). The government has these contracts with the public, the first being the constitution, of which the first amendment (contract clause, if you will) states that the government cannot stifle free speech (of any kind, including hate-speech). Trump (or any politician or government employee) is now "the government" and they agreed (literally, in the oath) to uphold the constitution (e.g., sign the contract).

 

[Stingman]

Your analogy was very bad and quite incorrect. Now lets say that same politician is using his bullhorn in the location and the other man takes the bullhorn away from the politician and starts yelling things at the crowd. The politician then takes back his bullhorn from the other man and does not let him have it again. The bullhorn was the politicians and the other man had no right to that bullhorn.

So political campaigns and candidates will now be forced to allow the opposition's point of view be advertised on their platform. Just cause people are blocked from another user doesn't mean that can't still have an opinion, they just don't get to advertise their opinion through a more popular account. No freedom of speech is being blocked.

Here's an analogy to what you're saying and why this argument will fall deaf on courts:
A man is standing in front of the white-house with a bullhorn shouting things (doesn't matter what things), then a politician comes and takes the bullhorn, preventing his speech from being heard by as many people (thus, limiting the speech).

He was in a popular spot, sure to get lots of attention, but a politician came and took away his tools used for speech. He can still use his mouth, but it doesn't carry as far.

The solution here is not to take the tool, but limit it's use either through 1) not making bullhorns (e.g., don't setup a twitter) or 2) pass legislation that limits bullhorn use, such as a noise-restriction law (e.g., pass a law that lets politicians block people on social media).

I suspect #1 will be the go-to. No one makes a politician setup twitter/FB/etc. They can go back to good old town-halls and news outlets where thoughts can be fleshed out and discussed rather than a one-way street (e.g., I tweet and then ignore the people I represent).

 

[namesrejected]

Correct, because a law is in-place to protect private property (see #2 from my analogy).



Because you're confusing public with private. Politicians work for the public and we pay them. Everything they do, we own, or they can quit. You probably signed a similar contract at your work (they can review your work, browsing done at work, etc. or you can not work there). The government has these contracts with the public, the first being the constitution, of which the first amendment (contract clause, if you will) states that the government cannot stifle free speech (of any kind, including hate-speech). Trump (or any politician or government employee) is now "the government" and they agreed (literally, in the oath) to uphold the constitution (e.g., sign the contract).

I can agree with that... well, except that "Politicians work for the public and we pay them"

Should read :

" Politicians work for the lobbyist and pass laws to take our money "

I can agree with everything else you say, or how it " should " be.

 

[Uncle Al]

One judge of a lesser court doesn't impact the law the way it used to. Let's see what happens when a the district court rules and a review is requested by the Supreme Court. While Twitter is a public company, membership on it is conditional so it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will rule against them. It would be great to see it, but it would come up against the companies right to create rules and standards for operation, which is a fundamental right of the company. Should the company lose, it could impact many other standards like their right to contractually require members to submit to bargaining and binding arbitration on damages, etc, etc, etc. None of this is necessarily bad, but it would certainly set a chilling precedent that could change the face of business in America as we know it today.

 

[insect]

Your analogy was very bad and quite incorrect. Now lets say that same politician is using his bullhorn in the location and the other man takes the bullhorn away from the politician and starts yelling things at the crowd. The politician then takes back his bullhorn from the other man and does not let him have it again. The bullhorn was the politicians and the other man had no right to that bullhorn.

Almost - I guess the real analogy is they both have bullhorns; the difference is that the public servant took away the bullhorn, not the other way around. And you might say "but the private citizen can ban a public servant and a public servant can't ban a private citizen - that's a double standard". Except that as a public servant you accept certain rules and play a different game. You lose certain rights and gain others by becoming a government employee. One of those lost is the right to ignore the public, in any media, at least as I see it (and so far one lower court). I'm equally as pissed on congressmen cancelling or skipping town-hall meetings and also see that as limiting free speech by removing some of the only direct platforms citizens have left. It's as if you could just say to your boss "I'm not going to listen to you anymore" - I'm sure you boss would be happy to fire you immediately. While you could say a public servant has thousands or millions of "bosses" and not listening to a few won't do any harm - its the start of a slippery slope and could set a precedent of not listening to all. I'm also not naive and think that every public servant has time or patience to listen to every person (just as I doubt many listen to everything their boss says), but they have to at least keep up the illusion to keep the "boss" happy.

 

[Virginia SGP]

I am the litigant and there appears to be some confusion on here.

1. Unlike Twitter, you cannot sign onto Facebook with an anonymous email. They verify your identity.

2. The ban was effected on a Facebook "page" as opposed to a user profile. Users have accounts. Pages are objects to represent a business, organization, or alternate identity of a user. 1+ users have admin control over a page but can be removed or swapped at any time.

3. Randall set up a page called "Chair Phyllis J. Randall" that both she and her county-paid chief of staff had admin rights immediately after she was elected for office. Randall:

a. Told users to ask her questions related to public business on that page from both her user profile timeline and another political page (Friends of Phyllis Randall) because such records would be subject to FOIA.

b. Randall provided only her gov't contact information on the "Chair" page and only discussed issues related to county business. On her Friends of Phyllis page she was busy bashing Trump in the most childish ways.

4. I didn't sue Randall after she blocked me for 12 hours in Feb 2016. I sued Loudoun County after multiple comments were deleted on the county FB page in July 2016. Only when Randall and the board asserted that Randall's block was perfectly legal and Randall could block me again on her Chair page at any time in the future did I add that claim to the complaint in Sep 2016.

5. A politician can establish a purely political page and block whomever they want. Randall can block me on her political page "Friends of Phyllis Randall" all she liked. I was blocked on numerous campaign pages during the 2015 Virginia and 2016 national elections. I have no right of speech on those pages.

6. I merely commented on Randall's page that 4 school board members were voting on raises for their spouses (who worked for the school district) without disclosing that conflict as required by Virginia law. During the Feb 2016 town hall, Randall had refused to answer whether the school board should enact the same ethics pledge that Randall and the county board had just enacted. A special prosecutor ruled in Sep 2016 that the 4 school board members violated the law by not disclosing those spousal conflicts. Randall likes to imply I was disparaging family members when it is indisputable I was only noting the legal violations of the school board members.

7. In the original claim in this case, Facebook admitted that their software allowed folks to gang up on another user by "reporting" them such that all the comments of that person would be immediately deleted. Thus, the county was not deleting my comments on the county FB page in July 2016. When Facebook admitted it modified its software to prevent such auto-blocking, thus my comments couldn't be suppressed in the future, I dropped the original claim in the case.

Questions?

 

[Uncle Al]

@ Virginia SGP: Well said and thank you for not being timid .... your service will benefit everyone!

 

[DelJo63]

I am the litigant and there appears to be some confusion on here.

1. you cannot sign onto Facebook with an anonymous email. They verify your identity.

Confusion? AMEN. Technologically, today it is IMPOSSIBLE to verify identity. If it could be done, then SPAM would not be possible without consequences. The entire email system needs a top down rewrite to solve this issue which includes non-repudiation.

(n)

 

[Don Jewell]

Another day, another hypocritical left-wing abuse of power. Can't wait to see it overturned. Facebook is not a public forum - its a private service where users have full authority to control their accounts as they see fit. By Judge Cacheris' own logic it would be unconstitutional to suppress FB posts from anyone, including ISIL, the KKK., BLM and other hate groups. Its long past time that these activist judges get the boot, and Trump needs to start cleaning house. After eight years of the biased media and courts doing all they could to suppress free speech that didn't support the Obama agenda this is beyond the pale. Its time for every American to stand up against fascism, a liberal invention that needs to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

I don't think you know what fascism is, friend. Fascism is far RIGHT politics associated with Nazi Germany and the early DPRK. It was never far-left (consider Germany's hatred of communism and the purge of all left-leaning members of the german parliament), and it CERTAINLY wasn't a "liberal invention"

 

[DelJo63]

I don't think you know what fascism is, friend. Fascism is far RIGHT politics associated with Nazi Germany and the early DPRK. It was never far-left (consider Germany's hatred of communism and the purge of all left-leaning members of the german parliament), and it CERTAINLY wasn't a "liberal invention"

Well, actually it is unlimited to a time or nation:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

aka as just occurred in Venezuela

 

[ChrisH1]

You can't just go and see a politician and say what you want to them. Staff, procedures, security etc will stop you. You can't just write whatever you want and send it in a letter, and insist they read it. Staff will intercept it, read it, discard mindless drivel and abuse. You can't just print anything you like in a newspaper or other forum, if it's inaccurate, wrong or abusive the laws of libel will get you and/or the editors will block it.

This is the reality of free speech. You have the freedom of speech, but there is no law saying people have to listen. Until twitter has a means of quickly, freely and accurately identifying the person who's making the tweet so that libel and abuse laws can apply promptly, there is no basis to say politicians - or anyone - cannot block them, it's the same as if some random stranger comes up to you in the street and starts abusing you. You are allowed to walk away, you don't have to listen, even if you're a politician.