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.
Link to tweet
* * * * *
ETA:
Read the full opinion from the 4th Circuit:
Link to tweet
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)LisaM
(27,803 posts)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)LisaM
(27,803 posts)Sorry if I was unclear.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)dsc
(52,160 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)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)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)Made all the harder by bought and paid for trolls
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)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)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)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)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.