Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,425 posts)
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:42 PM Jan 2019

Elected officials cannot silence critics on social media, appeals court rules

Source: Washington Post

Legal Issues

Elected officials cannot silence critics on social media, appeals court rules

By Ann E. Marimow
Reporter covering legal affairs

January 7 at 12:11 PM

An elected official in Virginia violated the First Amendment when she temporarily blocked a constituent on Facebook, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, in a novel case with implications for how government officials nationwide interact with constituents on social media.

The unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is the first from an appeals court to answer the question of whether free speech protections prevent public officials from barring critics from their social media feeds.

The 42-page opinion addresses the Facebook page of Phyllis J. Randall, chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, but President Trump is facing a similar lawsuit for silencing critics on his active @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, which has millions of followers.

[What does an elected official in Virginia have to do with whether President Trump can block people on Twitter? A lot.] (1)

Both officials, in separate court filings, contend their accounts on privately owned digital platforms are personal and that they can restrict who gets a chance to speak there without crossing constitutional lines. ... The Richmond-based appeals court disagreed. Public officials cannot block critical comments on digital platforms used to conduct official government business and to interact with constituents, the court concluded. Randall's case arose after she briefly blocked community activist Brian Davison in early 2016 for accusations she deemed "slanderous."
....

Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Follow https://twitter.com/amarimow

(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/what-does-an-elected-official-in-virginia-have-to-do-with-whether-president-trump-can-block-people-on-twitter-a-lot/2018/11/08/e7bdde58-d635-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/elected-officials-cannot-silence-critics-on-social-media-appeals-court-rules/2019/01/07/0b63eca4-128f-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html



Robert Barnes Retweeted

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

NEW from the 4th Circuit: Elected officials cannot silence critics on social media, court says in Virginia case with implications for how @realDonaldTrump manages his Twitter account.



* * * * *

ETA:

Read the full opinion from the 4th Circuit:


13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elected officials cannot silence critics on social media, appeals court rules (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2019 OP
Trump's twitter feed has been hilarious ever since a judge order him to unblock folk. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #1
Interesting. People in the Seattle area say that Sound Transit has been deleting comments LisaM Jan 2019 #2
Right now, it applies to the 4th Circuit, which is Virginia and the vicinity. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2019 #3
Of course. I meant as precedent. LisaM Jan 2019 #5
I'm certain it will. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2019 #7
specifically VA, WV, NC, SC and MD dsc Jan 2019 #8
Thanks. I didn't have the time to look that up. mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2019 #9
I have mixed feelings madville Jan 2019 #4
Which eliminates a convenient mode of commenting or inquiring. It's a tough situation lostnfound Jan 2019 #6
Cannot block but can MUTE... LovingA2andMI Jan 2019 #13
Yep. forgotmylogin Jan 2019 #10
I was going crosseyed. Was this a personal page or official govt page? DRoseDARs Jan 2019 #11
Good. The Mouth Jan 2019 #12

LisaM

(27,803 posts)
2. Interesting. People in the Seattle area say that Sound Transit has been deleting comments
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 02:46 PM
Jan 2019

from Facebook pages that discuss ST's insane plans for transit in the Puget Sound area. I wonder if this decision applies to public agencies, too.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,425 posts)
9. Thanks. I didn't have the time to look that up.
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:50 PM
Jan 2019

No doubt cases are pending in other districts. If one says "yes, you can," and another one says "no, you cannot," then a trip to SCOTUS could be in the works.

madville

(7,408 posts)
4. I have mixed feelings
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:03 PM
Jan 2019

We automatically think of Trump's twitter feed but if this applies to all elected officials trolls from all sides will junk up everyones' comment sections if no one can moderate. The easiest thing to do may be to disable public comments from all users, then you aren't singling out anyone if the policy applies to all equally.

lostnfound

(16,177 posts)
6. Which eliminates a convenient mode of commenting or inquiring. It's a tough situation
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:07 PM
Jan 2019

Made all the harder by bought and paid for trolls

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
13. Cannot block but can MUTE...
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 07:09 PM
Jan 2019

Twitter, Facebook and Instagram allows for a muting option. Also, if the Moderation policy is clear on the page, then a form of moderation of comments deem threatening or other disingenuous can be used.

Another reason why ANY Elected Official should CLEARLY separate their Private Page Social Media versus their Public Page - Elected Official, Social Media.

forgotmylogin

(7,527 posts)
10. Yep.
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 03:55 PM
Jan 2019

If you don't want feedback on Twitter, don't use Twitter.

Makes total sense that if public officials and authorities are going to use Social Media as an official information outlet, they cannot block people from perusing it. Especially if it's some kind of utility. You can't block individuals from an outlet then use it to provide information to which they need access.

 

DRoseDARs

(6,810 posts)
11. I was going crosseyed. Was this a personal page or official govt page?
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 04:00 PM
Jan 2019

If she ran it as being separate from her official position then she should have the right to block as she pleases. If she brought her office into it at all, or it was an official page of her office, then absolutely not. Easier and safer to just freeze your personal account while in office and "Suck it up, buttercup" on an official page. Trump is a perfect example of this. Should have frozen his personal Twitter account or, preferably shut his motherfucking mouth forever, and stick with an official office account.

The Mouth

(3,149 posts)
12. Good.
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 04:04 PM
Jan 2019

Censorship always sucks. Censors always suck. Even if I loath what they are deleting, I'd rather have every horrible troll and crazy motherfucker have their say than have a non-zero chance of anyone being blocked.

The only response to speech you don't like, should be MORE free speech.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Elected officials cannot ...