Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets(eff.org)
eff.org
Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/when-officials-tweet-about-government-business-they-dont-get-pick-and-choose-who
148 comments
Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not.
Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private property.
FTA: The medium of communication, whether it’s online, television, radio, print, or bullhorn—isn’t the issue
I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable users to block other users and it's really not the government's business.
Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private property.
FTA: The medium of communication, whether it’s online, television, radio, print, or bullhorn—isn’t the issue
I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable users to block other users and it's really not the government's business.
Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
> it's not the public square
Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.
It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.
This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.
So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.
It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.
This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.
So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
> This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
What if the mall owner or manager felt he knew the official well and assumed that he would prefer the protesters be removed? If he had them removed without any communication with the official would that be a violation?
It primarily depends on who is funding the politician's venture within the mall. If it's the taxpayers then that removal would constitute a First Amendment violation even without direction of the government itself.
Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.
Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.
I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can do, but with what the government can ask (in this case, using its features like Blocking) Twitter to do.
I would support Twitter if they decided that governmental users were not allowed to block.
Twitter is perfectly free to do that, but is not compelled to do so (and still won't be even if EFF wins this lawsuit).
Also notice that EFF winning this lawsuit will not compel all gov't users to disavow the block feature, because not all forms of gov't communications come with the same free speech obligations. The 1st amendment has different ramifications depending on the purpose of the forum; e.g., the rules for:
Also notice that EFF winning this lawsuit will not compel all gov't users to disavow the block feature, because not all forms of gov't communications come with the same free speech obligations. The 1st amendment has different ramifications depending on the purpose of the forum; e.g., the rules for:
* NOAA emergency announcements,
* national park service informational billboards, and
* city council Q&A sessions
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
That's a completely different situation than what the OP is talking about, which is public officials acting and communicating in their given public roles. It's illegal as hell to spend government resources on campaign purposes. That's why officials have separate websites for their public office and for their campaign:
https://issa.house.gov/
https://www.darrellissa.com/
That's a completely different situation than what the OP is talking about, which is public officials acting and communicating in their given public roles. It's illegal as hell to spend government resources on campaign purposes. That's why officials have separate websites for their public office and for their campaign:
https://issa.house.gov/
https://www.darrellissa.com/
[deleted]
> The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t.
You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it, without any due process or even notification (see: shadowbanning). Nevermind that Twitter regularly pushes its own viewpoints to the top, not only of its own homefeed, but picks-and-chooses which users get to show directly underneath the Trump's tweets. That sort of power, unregulated and non-transparent, is immense. Maybe the algorithm should be transparent.
More and more, I feel like content-providers are treating the First Amendment as damage and routing around it [1]
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it, without any due process or even notification (see: shadowbanning). Nevermind that Twitter regularly pushes its own viewpoints to the top, not only of its own homefeed, but picks-and-chooses which users get to show directly underneath the Trump's tweets. That sort of power, unregulated and non-transparent, is immense. Maybe the algorithm should be transparent.
More and more, I feel like content-providers are treating the First Amendment as damage and routing around it [1]
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it
IANAL, but the relevant case law seems clear to me - the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property, even when that property is used like a public place, e.g. a mall.
What does seem to apply is State law - that is, seems like a US State can force a mall owner to allow people to express certain speech, without the State itself violating the First Amendment (as per [1]). Which raises the question whether the State(s) where Twitter has a legal presence could restrict its control.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
IANAL, but the relevant case law seems clear to me - the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property, even when that property is used like a public place, e.g. a mall.
What does seem to apply is State law - that is, seems like a US State can force a mall owner to allow people to express certain speech, without the State itself violating the First Amendment (as per [1]). Which raises the question whether the State(s) where Twitter has a legal presence could restrict its control.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
I'm not sure we have decent case law for the situation we're in now... the speech of Americans is largely controlled by a few entities that have the power to silence your speech almost completely, at least in the ways that speech is used today.
I don't think you understand how case law works. Unless you're making an argument for full legal instrumentalism(?)
I just don't think a mall and Twitter/Facebook are particularly comparable. They have some things in common, but they differ in large, important ways. If every mall in the US was actually the very same mall, and getting banned from one got you banned from all malls, and malls could shadowban you, and the President typically communicated via malls, and malls were the primary way in which society spoke to each other... and on and on.
Then again IANAL, so I definitely don't understand how case law works. Just using common sense here. All I see in common between malls and Twitter/FB is they are both private property and speech is involved. There's a chasm beyond that.
Then again IANAL, so I definitely don't understand how case law works. Just using common sense here. All I see in common between malls and Twitter/FB is they are both private property and speech is involved. There's a chasm beyond that.
Fair enough, but the courts don't simply say Yea or Nay, they explain why the First Amendment doesn't apply to malls, and the reasons are valid for Twitter too. By the way, IANAL either, but rayiner is :)
Free speech has become a political tool. Content providers as you indicated like Twitter, and i'll add Reddit, push their political agendas very heavily. It was very interesting to see Reddit (or many subreddits anyway) campaigning against recent NN plans on grounds of there being an impact to their rights to free speech. The rooster is killing the chick's and complaining to the Hen about a wolf outside.
During the hysteria, if you pointed this out on Reddit, your comment would be censored.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>> The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t.
> You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me
It is clear to me: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech."
I don't see where it says anything about private corporations.
> You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me
It is clear to me: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech."
I don't see where it says anything about private corporations.
Congress makes the laws that allow corporations to operate nationally. It can be argued that Congress has abridged the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly by creating the environment in which private entities own everything that resembles a modern public venue.
> Congress makes the laws that allow corporations to operate nationally. It can be argued that Congress has abridged the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly by creating the environment in which private entities own everything that resembles a modern public venue.
Only if by "it can be argued" you're referring to being physically capable of arguing. Otherwise, no. The first amendment was never about guaranteeing you a platform or about otherwise ensuring anyone else hears you. It was about the government not arresting you for what comes out of your mouth.
Only if by "it can be argued" you're referring to being physically capable of arguing. Otherwise, no. The first amendment was never about guaranteeing you a platform or about otherwise ensuring anyone else hears you. It was about the government not arresting you for what comes out of your mouth.
All that matters is what the country needs now, not what some reasonably insightful but far from clairvoyant people thought a couple hundred years ago.
Also you put words into my mouth. I never said anything about guarantees or platforms. But consider this: if the government's intention was always to turn over every useful platform to wealthy private owners, why bother with a bill of rights or first amendment at all?
Also you put words into my mouth. I never said anything about guarantees or platforms. But consider this: if the government's intention was always to turn over every useful platform to wealthy private owners, why bother with a bill of rights or first amendment at all?
Oh, so you think Net Neutrality was unconstitutional?
> Oh, so you think Net Neutrality was unconstitutional?
I can't even understand your logic to try to make sense of this and respond to you. Are you saying you think if the first amendment doesn't imply X then X is unconstitutional?
I can't even understand your logic to try to make sense of this and respond to you. Are you saying you think if the first amendment doesn't imply X then X is unconstitutional?
My point is that the First Amendment is far more complicated than your comment. The government regularly forces private corporations to carry speech they disagree with in the name of the First Amendment. AT&T can't censor my calls if they don't like the content, so clearly corporations do intersect with the first amendment.
EDIT: Can't reply to your comment, so here's one such article, from the EFF no less, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
EDIT: Can't reply to your comment, so here's one such article, from the EFF no less, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
I'm pretty darn sure net neutrality regulation was there to promote competition, protect consumers, etc. (see: commerce clause, among others) rather than to protect people's first-amendment rights. Notwithstanding how you may have personally viewed it, you're gonna need some serious citations if you're going to seriously argue the regulation was there due to 1st-amendment free speech concerns. Here's a link from my end to get you started. https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/03/10/the-...
EDIT in response to your edit: you dodged this pretty cleverly. Senators say a lot of wrong and even contradictory things (I hope I don't need to waste time finding you videos), and like any interest group, EFF stretches arguments beyond their applicability to support their agenda. (Not saying they have bad agendas! But having a desirable conclusion doesn't imply good arguments are being provided for it.)
There are pretty clear lines between:
[1] "some senators (and EFF) feel a lack of net neutrality would violate the first amendment" (which wasn't your argument, and if it was, is a pretty weak claim),
[2] "net neutrality was there to protect first amendment rights" (which was your argument, and the one I was asking you to support, and a pretty easy one to prove if correct -- all you need is to quote the rationales for the net neutrality regulation we had), and
[3] "lack of net neutrality actually violates the first amendment" (which you've been arguing towards, but which would require case law as proof, not senators' feelings)
EDIT in response to your edit: you dodged this pretty cleverly. Senators say a lot of wrong and even contradictory things (I hope I don't need to waste time finding you videos), and like any interest group, EFF stretches arguments beyond their applicability to support their agenda. (Not saying they have bad agendas! But having a desirable conclusion doesn't imply good arguments are being provided for it.)
There are pretty clear lines between:
[1] "some senators (and EFF) feel a lack of net neutrality would violate the first amendment" (which wasn't your argument, and if it was, is a pretty weak claim),
[2] "net neutrality was there to protect first amendment rights" (which was your argument, and the one I was asking you to support, and a pretty easy one to prove if correct -- all you need is to quote the rationales for the net neutrality regulation we had), and
[3] "lack of net neutrality actually violates the first amendment" (which you've been arguing towards, but which would require case law as proof, not senators' feelings)
> But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum
Then perhaps our elected and appointed officials should not use Twitter when conducting government business.
But more importantly, this is a related but different issue from the one discussed in the brief. There are two questions:
1. Should officials have the right to block users for their political speech
2. Should officials be allowed to use platforms that block users for their political speech, or prefer some political speech over other speech.
IMO the answer to both questions should be "no". But this is case is really about the first question.
Then perhaps our elected and appointed officials should not use Twitter when conducting government business.
But more importantly, this is a related but different issue from the one discussed in the brief. There are two questions:
1. Should officials have the right to block users for their political speech
2. Should officials be allowed to use platforms that block users for their political speech, or prefer some political speech over other speech.
IMO the answer to both questions should be "no". But this is case is really about the first question.
Re: the mall example, would the government have to actively stop mall security guards from kicking people out for speech-related acts made within the "public forum" space that are against the mall's private policies?
Yes. If taxpayers are funding the mall space, they are entitled to assemble there. Any violation of that is a First Amendment case.
It's why government doesn't set up in malls, the malls won't let them. But a mall isn't the best analogy for Twitter because a Twtitterfight doesn't interfere with the rest of Twitter at all.
The better analogy is a (soundproofed) hotel where your key granted you access to every room but the owner of the room can choose to deny you access. If the government (ie taxpayers) owns the room, they can't deny you access when conducting official business.
It's why government doesn't set up in malls, the malls won't let them. But a mall isn't the best analogy for Twitter because a Twtitterfight doesn't interfere with the rest of Twitter at all.
The better analogy is a (soundproofed) hotel where your key granted you access to every room but the owner of the room can choose to deny you access. If the government (ie taxpayers) owns the room, they can't deny you access when conducting official business.
> Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not.
I am not an expert on this area of law, but it's possible that they could:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
> The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.
I am not an expert on this area of law, but it's possible that they could:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
> The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.
Your meat space analogy only makes sense if twitter is neutral.
Conservatives and Ajit Pai think twitter is not a neutral edge service.
If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives.
Conservatives and Ajit Pai think twitter is not a neutral edge service.
If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives.
> only makes sense if twitter is neutral. Conservatives and Ajit Pai think twitter is not a neutral edge service.
Actually, this makes the analogy an exceptionally good one!
Malls and mall owners are about as far from politically neutral as you can get, especially at the local level. I've never seen a major mall be build/renovated without some squabbling about local/regional tax policy.
Politicians can't censor speech based on political content during open Q&A periods at city council meetings. And that doesn't change just because they choose to hold those meetings in the mall parking lot.
From the article: When elected officials choose to give speeches in a park, hold town hall meetings in a school stadium, stand on a street corner giving safety instructions to flood victims, or debate each other on Twitter, the public’s First Amendment rights to receive those messages are triggered.
> If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives.
Both sides of the isle utilize the courts to protect their first amendment rights. This has always been true and will always be true.
Actually, this makes the analogy an exceptionally good one!
Malls and mall owners are about as far from politically neutral as you can get, especially at the local level. I've never seen a major mall be build/renovated without some squabbling about local/regional tax policy.
Politicians can't censor speech based on political content during open Q&A periods at city council meetings. And that doesn't change just because they choose to hold those meetings in the mall parking lot.
From the article: When elected officials choose to give speeches in a park, hold town hall meetings in a school stadium, stand on a street corner giving safety instructions to flood victims, or debate each other on Twitter, the public’s First Amendment rights to receive those messages are triggered.
> If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives.
Both sides of the isle utilize the courts to protect their first amendment rights. This has always been true and will always be true.
This is an interesting issue. One thing they don’t mention is trolls. In a physical public forum such as a town hall meeting, if some crazy gets up and starts uttering threats or stripping their clothes off, they’re going to be escorted out. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider this a violation of that person’s right to free speech just because the cops showed up before they finished threatening every person they disagreed with.
Now consider twitter. If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics, is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room? (This is not considering any action the secret service may take regarding threats)
Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in general.
Now consider twitter. If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics, is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room? (This is not considering any action the secret service may take regarding threats)
Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in general.
The article addresses this point indirectly. They don't have to allow completely free rein. They can't however block simply because they disagree with the content.
They give the example of a public library that has a discussion board that they only allow use of for book recommendations. They are allowed to restrict the use of the discussion board to only book recommendations, but they can't restrict it based on whether they agree with the book recommendation or not.
They give the example of a public library that has a discussion board that they only allow use of for book recommendations. They are allowed to restrict the use of the discussion board to only book recommendations, but they can't restrict it based on whether they agree with the book recommendation or not.
If trolling truly starts to become a threat, there is legal recourse. It's just as illegal to threaten someone with murder on the internet as it is on a street corner. As for sending pornographic images, that's already against the Twitter terms of service, so all one would need to do is report the troll for spreading porn, then wait for Twitter to remove them from the platform. There's no need for a government account to block people.
"It's just as illegal to threaten someone with murder on the internet as it is on a street corner" -- this interests me. On a street corner the face-to-face threat is far more real and the threatened outcome more likely than on the internet where the lack of physical presence leads people to rant and vent in offensive ways that don't amount to much. Half the time the people engaged are on different continents with made up names, so even if someone got sufficiently worked up to pursue another s/he wouldn't get very far unless he was so psychologically divergent that frankly s/he's going to kill someone else soon enough that twitter policing is irrelevant. I think twitter, and possibly the net, should possibly be at least partially treated like MMA - sport, not taken too seriously, get in, take a beating, give a beating. I haven't give this much thought, but basically there seems to be no acknowledgment of the fact that the virtual world is not physical, and it seems to me that we interact with the two differently and that should be considered.
Even in person, the laws distinguish between "true threats" and hyperbole, which will take both the content of a threat and its context into account.
See this video about some of the prominent people who were blocked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E70tu5k5rdY. As biased as the video is, it's easy to see that many of these users were basically trolls.
This is a very old question with centuries of case law exploring every nook and cranny.
It depends on the context. If this kind of behaviour is normal for Twitter then a politician should not expect special treatment. It is like going to an open mic night at a comedy club and then getting angry when you are heckled. Why should people change their behaviour simply because of who has decided to speak?
Well to be strict you should first ask them to stop - then you ask the stewards to escort them out or adjourn the meeting and call the police.
>Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in general.
You must be new here. The logic on HN goes "whatever I want, is good and thinking about wider repercussions is stupid."
The second we get a _new_ President, say, a Democrat black woman, and she gets spammed with non-stop dick pics and lynching pictures, all a sudden everyone in HN is going to be like "omfg, the President should be able to block trolls."
It's basic tribalism. "My team" is the good guys, so whatever they do is good. As opposed to logic, where "things" are good and bad and they make the people good or bad. People here believe "my candidate/group/alliance are good" and if they do something "evil" then [insert mental gymnastics].
We're literally experiencing a secular religion in the 2010's. Which is why everyone gets so emotional and outraged as if you're talking about their religion when you bring up simple politics. And, why they strive so hard to "out" and smash anyone who is a threat to their religion. Secular witchhunts. Exposing the non-believers for virtue points.
And it's not entirely their fault. These religious aspects are human (biological) aspects. Humans are innately spiritual. The real flaw was thinking that simply having "no religion" somehow prevents you from acting out the same vices of the religious, like witchhunts, proving your alliance/purity/etc, and lynchmobs to destroy "invalid" members of the in-group.
Try being a liberal and then (for the sake of example) tell people you converted to conservatism. It'll be like you were a religion and just insulted the honor of everyone in your family, friends, and community. You betrayed "the group." They will not only cut off all communication with you, but attack you. You have "left the faith" and betrayed them. Google what happened to the Feminist (laci green?) who dated a MRA and then said "I'm still a feminist but maybe both sides have fair points, like male suicide rates." She got instant death threats. Letters full of poop. Graffitti on her house.
A bunch of white feminist guys telling a woman to kill herself. How can you call that feminism? Oh yeah, because religion. She threatened the religion by questioning it and dating an outsider so it's now "righteous" to destroy her.
I'm honestly hard pressed to find any difference between the witchhunts of the 90's neo-cons, to the witchhunts of the 2010's progressives. People's lives are being destroyed. Who cares what "cause" the perpetrators have when the real minorities are being crushed under gigantic religious-political movements?
Sources: Ask any evolutionary scientist.
You must be new here. The logic on HN goes "whatever I want, is good and thinking about wider repercussions is stupid."
The second we get a _new_ President, say, a Democrat black woman, and she gets spammed with non-stop dick pics and lynching pictures, all a sudden everyone in HN is going to be like "omfg, the President should be able to block trolls."
It's basic tribalism. "My team" is the good guys, so whatever they do is good. As opposed to logic, where "things" are good and bad and they make the people good or bad. People here believe "my candidate/group/alliance are good" and if they do something "evil" then [insert mental gymnastics].
We're literally experiencing a secular religion in the 2010's. Which is why everyone gets so emotional and outraged as if you're talking about their religion when you bring up simple politics. And, why they strive so hard to "out" and smash anyone who is a threat to their religion. Secular witchhunts. Exposing the non-believers for virtue points.
And it's not entirely their fault. These religious aspects are human (biological) aspects. Humans are innately spiritual. The real flaw was thinking that simply having "no religion" somehow prevents you from acting out the same vices of the religious, like witchhunts, proving your alliance/purity/etc, and lynchmobs to destroy "invalid" members of the in-group.
Try being a liberal and then (for the sake of example) tell people you converted to conservatism. It'll be like you were a religion and just insulted the honor of everyone in your family, friends, and community. You betrayed "the group." They will not only cut off all communication with you, but attack you. You have "left the faith" and betrayed them. Google what happened to the Feminist (laci green?) who dated a MRA and then said "I'm still a feminist but maybe both sides have fair points, like male suicide rates." She got instant death threats. Letters full of poop. Graffitti on her house.
A bunch of white feminist guys telling a woman to kill herself. How can you call that feminism? Oh yeah, because religion. She threatened the religion by questioning it and dating an outsider so it's now "righteous" to destroy her.
I'm honestly hard pressed to find any difference between the witchhunts of the 90's neo-cons, to the witchhunts of the 2010's progressives. People's lives are being destroyed. Who cares what "cause" the perpetrators have when the real minorities are being crushed under gigantic religious-political movements?
Sources: Ask any evolutionary scientist.
> is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room?
Absolutely not. Blocking someone is the digital equivalent of turning your back to them. They can still interact with you. You're just choosing to not see.
> If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics
This is illegal behaviour. The account should be reported by users, deleted by Twitter, and handed to local authorities for criminal investigation (threats, harassment, etc.)
Absolutely not. Blocking someone is the digital equivalent of turning your back to them. They can still interact with you. You're just choosing to not see.
> If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics
This is illegal behaviour. The account should be reported by users, deleted by Twitter, and handed to local authorities for criminal investigation (threats, harassment, etc.)
This is illegal behavior
Maybe in writing, but most police aren't readily going to investigate such things, especially the harassment or threatening. And so long as both parties are of age, is it even illegal to send dick picks?
All that said, I do think having standards of conduct aren't that bad. Blocking, though, keeps them from seeing your stuff. Not so bad if entertainment, but a lot more somber when the person is a politician with power to change lives.
Maybe in writing, but most police aren't readily going to investigate such things, especially the harassment or threatening. And so long as both parties are of age, is it even illegal to send dick picks?
All that said, I do think having standards of conduct aren't that bad. Blocking, though, keeps them from seeing your stuff. Not so bad if entertainment, but a lot more somber when the person is a politician with power to change lives.
I think you're confusing blocking and muting.
The cops don't just show up to show the person the door, or to implement a permanent ban for the person to ever participate again in a town hall meeting. They show up because there are laws, and their role in society is to enforce those laws.
The digital equivalent of enforcing laws is to send police to the non-digital place where the criminal live and escort them to the police station for questioning. Police work in the digital space is identical to police work in non-digital place. The only exception to this is when the accused live outside the reach of the police, in which case blocking can be the only option available.
Banning people should be used with care. I read the EFF article in that context, and I doubt that they would object if the police went and visited someone accused of making death threats, threats of violence, or harassment. I also expect EFF to be there and watch if a difference in viewpoints would be labeled as either of those.
The digital equivalent of enforcing laws is to send police to the non-digital place where the criminal live and escort them to the police station for questioning. Police work in the digital space is identical to police work in non-digital place. The only exception to this is when the accused live outside the reach of the police, in which case blocking can be the only option available.
Banning people should be used with care. I read the EFF article in that context, and I doubt that they would object if the police went and visited someone accused of making death threats, threats of violence, or harassment. I also expect EFF to be there and watch if a difference in viewpoints would be labeled as either of those.
[deleted]
The difference is that there is no physical risk on Twitter, unlike in a public space.
The law might disagree. emphasis on the might.
https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporte...
https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporte...
People have gone to jail for tweets that were deemed criminal violence.
Which is nuts.
Is it though? Are you suggesting that me saying “I’m gonna kill you” here on Hacker News shouldn’t be treated as a threat simply because it’s not a physical interaction, but a digital one?
Yes, interactions that happen in close physical proximity should be treated differently than interactions separated by digital distances.
I think the EFF are clutching at straws a bit. Blocking someone from contracting you on social media isn't really a freedom of speech issue -
so long as an alternatives means exists. Though restricting them from reading your content if those posts are in an official capacity is very questionable. More so considering how much official communication is moving online.
For example Twitter now seems to have become a default channel of sorts for announcing power outages and for urgent press releases from government agencies. Is it right that someone misses out on updates because they were blocked?
Maybe what is needed is for twitter/facebook etc to have a special kind of "read only" blocking for government and public official accounts?
For example Twitter now seems to have become a default channel of sorts for announcing power outages and for urgent press releases from government agencies. Is it right that someone misses out on updates because they were blocked?
Maybe what is needed is for twitter/facebook etc to have a special kind of "read only" blocking for government and public official accounts?
I have no expectation that any form of communication I make will be listened to. I can call my senator or Donald Trump on the phone but it's very unlikely I will actually be able to talk to them. I can send my senator or Donald Trump a letter but it's unlikely it will actually be read by them. There are many filters in place. Twitter blocks are just another filter on a specific communications medium.
Muting is a filter. Blocking imposes restrictions on the actual speech, and on the reception of Tweets.
Well, by that metaphor, Senators and the president should just ignore tweets they don’t like, same as mail and phone. That is different than returning mail to sender or blocking someone’s phone number.
"Blocking someone from contracting you on social media isn't really a freedom of speech issue - so long as an alternatives means exists"
Kicking someone out of a town hall meeting is not a free speech issue, so long as alternative means exist. Kicking someone out of a public square is not a free speech issue, so long as alternative means exist.
The only difference in the Twitter case is that Twitter as a private company can freely exclude whomever it wants. The point is that a public official cannot direct Twitter to do so, which should include directing Twitter to block a particular user.
Kicking someone out of a town hall meeting is not a free speech issue, so long as alternative means exist. Kicking someone out of a public square is not a free speech issue, so long as alternative means exist.
The only difference in the Twitter case is that Twitter as a private company can freely exclude whomever it wants. The point is that a public official cannot direct Twitter to do so, which should include directing Twitter to block a particular user.
People get kicked out of town hall meetings all the time.
The chaos and hostility of an average Twitter discussion would surely result in removal from an in-person town hall meeting.
The chaos and hostility of an average Twitter discussion would surely result in removal from an in-person town hall meeting.
> Though restricting them from reading your content if those posts are in an official capacity is very questionable.
I think this is probably the biggest issue overall. If all of Trumps tweets were published on whitehouse.gov or in the Federal Register, I wonder if that might make this lawsuit irrelevant?
The EFF says "The president’s tweets are official statements and the public has a First Amendment right to receive them." But if you could read them in the Federal Register, wouldn't this claim be satisfied?
I think this is probably the biggest issue overall. If all of Trumps tweets were published on whitehouse.gov or in the Federal Register, I wonder if that might make this lawsuit irrelevant?
The EFF says "The president’s tweets are official statements and the public has a First Amendment right to receive them." But if you could read them in the Federal Register, wouldn't this claim be satisfied?
Seems like EFF is in a specific bubble where eveyrone has blocked trump, so they and their friends are not getting trump's tweets, unless they hit the media. They think everyone else has the same issue. This is such a cliquish thing to do - is there anyone who would admit under oath that they seriously can't find trump's tweets?
[deleted]
This is an interesting argument. I'm persuaded that, say, the Department of Agriculture can't apply viewpoint-based discrimination on whom they choose to block from their Twitter feed.
It's much less clear to me that this restriction should apply to every government official using Twitter in the same manner as a private citizen might. What's the limiting principle? The First Amendment applies just as much at your local school board meeting as it does at a White House press conference; does that mean each of those elected officials must treat their social media accounts as public forums if they ever choose to use them to chat about official business as @realdonaldtrump does?
It's much less clear to me that this restriction should apply to every government official using Twitter in the same manner as a private citizen might. What's the limiting principle? The First Amendment applies just as much at your local school board meeting as it does at a White House press conference; does that mean each of those elected officials must treat their social media accounts as public forums if they ever choose to use them to chat about official business as @realdonaldtrump does?
> I'm persuaded that, say, the Department of Agriculture can't apply viewpoint-based discrimination
I agree. But how far does that go? Lets say there's a small town somewhere that hosts a monthly community BBQ/potluck during the summer. They post photos to the town facebook page, and PETA shows up and starts spamming the comments with "meat is murder" and the like. Can the town block PETA?
I agree. But how far does that go? Lets say there's a small town somewhere that hosts a monthly community BBQ/potluck during the summer. They post photos to the town facebook page, and PETA shows up and starts spamming the comments with "meat is murder" and the like. Can the town block PETA?
This is an issue already dealt with at length in existing case law, and is largely unrelated to the case at hand because @realdonaldtrump is not a place for announcing community events or road closures, and the censorship applied there is not viewpoint-neutral.
Relevant quote from the article: The president has admitted in the lawsuit that he blocked them because he objected to the viewpoints they expressed in replying to his tweets or in their own tweets.
The reason EFF describes that as an "admission", is because it makes the question you raise irrelevant.
Relevant quote from the article: The president has admitted in the lawsuit that he blocked them because he objected to the viewpoints they expressed in replying to his tweets or in their own tweets.
The reason EFF describes that as an "admission", is because it makes the question you raise irrelevant.
Hypothetical: Suppose A is a citizen of the town and one of the PETA supporters, and its thus blocked. Suppose further that they post a bridge out notice, which A cannot receive due to the block.
As for "spamming", there are, our should be, other remedies for such harassment.
As for "spamming", there are, our should be, other remedies for such harassment.
It depends on what other limits they place on the use of the town facebook page.
If they consistently apply the rule that only content related to the monthly potluck is allowed, then they would be allowed to block PETA (this is similar to the example the article gives of a public library that hosts a discussion board exclusively for book recommendations). They wouldn't be able to block someone who complained that the food would at the last potluck was bad, because that would be blocking them based on viewpoint rather than based on topic.
If they consistently apply the rule that only content related to the monthly potluck is allowed, then they would be allowed to block PETA (this is similar to the example the article gives of a public library that hosts a discussion board exclusively for book recommendations). They wouldn't be able to block someone who complained that the food would at the last potluck was bad, because that would be blocking them based on viewpoint rather than based on topic.
Does the small town use Twitter to announce major policy decisions and attack political opponents?
The brief/article seems to argue that @realdonaldtrump represents a public forum only because he uses it as such, and they’ve explicitly stated that his posts represent official views of POTUS. To me, that implies that public officials can still have private accounts provided that they don’t use them for official communications.
Twitter and social media don't want that door opened.
It will almost certainly subject them to strong regulations.
I guarantee conservative/maga types like Roger Stone who have been banned from Twitter will sue, since they would have a right to comment on Official Tweets.
The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company.
I personally find this article distasteful, as Net Neutrality is about to be lost, and the EFF is publishing stuff about Tweets.
Its time like these, where I'm convinced the EFF needs to be replaced by a more aggressive Organization dedicated to protecting our civil liberties from things like PRISM and protecting Net Neutrality.
What the point in a worthless battle/distraction(Trump can just drop twitter), when we are in the middle of a larger war (NN) ?
I guarantee conservative/maga types like Roger Stone who have been banned from Twitter will sue, since they would have a right to comment on Official Tweets.
The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company.
I personally find this article distasteful, as Net Neutrality is about to be lost, and the EFF is publishing stuff about Tweets.
Its time like these, where I'm convinced the EFF needs to be replaced by a more aggressive Organization dedicated to protecting our civil liberties from things like PRISM and protecting Net Neutrality.
What the point in a worthless battle/distraction(Trump can just drop twitter), when we are in the middle of a larger war (NN) ?
IMO it’s not about if Twitter is a private space or not it’s about government officials using it as a public space to inform the public. Government officials blocking people clearly does infringe on their first amendment right to be informed even though Twitter isn’t public. The article even points out that if I hold a public press briefing (on private property or not) you can’t stop journalists you don’t like from attending or asking questions. This is the same thing with Twitter; they are fine to have their own rules about blocking people but as soon as government people are using this forum in a public sense their tweets become protected in a way you or me blocking someone doesn’t.
To take this even further, if I have a private property and I ban you from it that’s fine, you don’t have a right to be there. But if I’m holding public events on private property you have a right to be able to at least hear what’s being said and maybe even organise a protest against it.
At least that’s the way I read the arguments put forward in the article anyway...
To take this even further, if I have a private property and I ban you from it that’s fine, you don’t have a right to be there. But if I’m holding public events on private property you have a right to be able to at least hear what’s being said and maybe even organise a protest against it.
At least that’s the way I read the arguments put forward in the article anyway...
The crux of their argument has nothing to do with whether Twitter is a private forum. That is why the suit is against Trump, not Twitter.
The underlying thesis is that Trump (as a government official) can’t pick a forum for public discourse that exerts viewpoint discrimination on participants.
To wit: it would actually be fine if Twitter banned all re-posting, replying and re-tweeting. Then all readers would be treated equally. This is the equivalent of posting on a blog with comments disabled, or delivering a televised speech.
The issue is that Trump is using Twitter’s tools to discriminate among users based upon their viewpoint. That’s what’s not OK. Just as it would not be OK for a local board to hold their meetings at a private country club, where only members are allowed to observe and comment - especially so if, for example, only men were allowed to be members. There’s nothing wrong with having a private members-only club, the issue is with the governmental body choosing that medium for public commentary.
The underlying thesis is that Trump (as a government official) can’t pick a forum for public discourse that exerts viewpoint discrimination on participants.
To wit: it would actually be fine if Twitter banned all re-posting, replying and re-tweeting. Then all readers would be treated equally. This is the equivalent of posting on a blog with comments disabled, or delivering a televised speech.
The issue is that Trump is using Twitter’s tools to discriminate among users based upon their viewpoint. That’s what’s not OK. Just as it would not be OK for a local board to hold their meetings at a private country club, where only members are allowed to observe and comment - especially so if, for example, only men were allowed to be members. There’s nothing wrong with having a private members-only club, the issue is with the governmental body choosing that medium for public commentary.
The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not. Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to participate, which is their right as a private company.
Twitter (et al) want it both ways. They want the no-liability of a common carrier, in the same way that the phone company or the postal service aren't liable if people use them to plan or carry out illegal acts. But they also want the "private company" right to say who and who cannot say what. The weird decision to withdraw verified identities for certain users for example, when clearly, they are still who they say they are and who Twitter previously confirmed them to be. The selective enforcement of the ToS. Well, they're going to have to choose because the current situation isn't sustainable. Neither will be good for their shareholders.
Twitter (et al) want it both ways. They want the no-liability of a common carrier, in the same way that the phone company or the postal service aren't liable if people use them to plan or carry out illegal acts. But they also want the "private company" right to say who and who cannot say what. The weird decision to withdraw verified identities for certain users for example, when clearly, they are still who they say they are and who Twitter previously confirmed them to be. The selective enforcement of the ToS. Well, they're going to have to choose because the current situation isn't sustainable. Neither will be good for their shareholders.
It's not entirely pointless. The status quo is that all internet sites are private platforms. If the case can be made that some parts of the internet work as "public squares" than the argument for a neutral internet is much stronger.
I read somewhere that even the NSA didn't call their program PRISM when they used it.. so officials could honestly say they didn't know what you were talking about when you mentioned PRISM. Interesting, no?
Comprehensive net neutrality would presumably also include edge service providers (ie, platforms), since they are potential gatekeepers regarding who can post bits and who can't post bits on their sites.
The first amendment applies to the actions of govnerment officials, not private parties.
In the meat-space analogy, the mall is still able to kick out people for violating its rules on conduct, but government officials are not allowed to, nor are they allowed to ask the mall to kick people out on their behalf.
> Trump can just drop twitter
Can he, really? It is his favorite medium, the one that allows him direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like.
In the meat-space analogy, the mall is still able to kick out people for violating its rules on conduct, but government officials are not allowed to, nor are they allowed to ask the mall to kick people out on their behalf.
> Trump can just drop twitter
Can he, really? It is his favorite medium, the one that allows him direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like.
In what way would a private site (say, a self-hosted GNU Social instance) not allow Trump direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the like?
> The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not.
right. this lawsuit is most likely going nowhere because it would require an incredibly expansive interpretation of free speech rights with far ranging consequences.
right. this lawsuit is most likely going nowhere because it would require an incredibly expansive interpretation of free speech rights with far ranging consequences.
Indeed, I think so many don't really consider the consequences of their actions. If this lawsuit is successful on the desired basis that private companies operating semi-open platforms are legally deemed as "Public Forum" then that is a huge game changer for everything.
I have an extremely positive view of the EFF, but in this case it really looks like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. A key statement in the article is, "It’s the president’s (and other officials’) use of Twitter that is subject to the First Amendment, not Twitter itself." Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter.
The thing about issues like net neutrality and the NSA is that, so far, they've covered their legal bases. I think dedicating legal resources to something, that the organization itself presumably has no expectation of a positive ability to influence, would be a far greater travesty than pursuing something where they believe they can effect positive change. The EFF, for how much they do, are incredibly small and underfunded -- they have to pick their fights.
I have an extremely positive view of the EFF, but in this case it really looks like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. A key statement in the article is, "It’s the president’s (and other officials’) use of Twitter that is subject to the First Amendment, not Twitter itself." Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter.
The thing about issues like net neutrality and the NSA is that, so far, they've covered their legal bases. I think dedicating legal resources to something, that the organization itself presumably has no expectation of a positive ability to influence, would be a far greater travesty than pursuing something where they believe they can effect positive change. The EFF, for how much they do, are incredibly small and underfunded -- they have to pick their fights.
Yet their entire argument states quite the opposite - that this entire thing is contingent on Twitter being defined as a sort of legally defined Forum for discussion so that first amendment law is applicable. That categorization most certainly has major implications for Twitter and all major social media for that matter.
IANAL, but I don't think there's such thing as a binary test of whether a place is subject to the First Amendment or not. It's always applicable in a specific context - here being the restrictions that the government can apply to the public, nothing else.
They gave the example of Television, saying that the government can't block specific viewers from seeing it - yet that doesn't make TV channels a sort of public square, where they have to allow anyone to make their statements. It's only a restriction on the government.
IANAL, but I don't think there's such thing as a binary test of whether a place is subject to the First Amendment or not. It's always applicable in a specific context - here being the restrictions that the government can apply to the public, nothing else.
They gave the example of Television, saying that the government can't block specific viewers from seeing it - yet that doesn't make TV channels a sort of public square, where they have to allow anyone to make their statements. It's only a restriction on the government.
This is the core piece of the article's argument:
"In creating social media accounts with these communication features, like a Facebook page with a comments section, or a Twitter account that permits tagging and replies, the government endows the public with First Amendment rights to speak in these forums.
The First Amendment forbids viewpoint-based speech restrictions like those that result from blocking. The legal doctrine that applies here is the same one that is used to determine the government’s ability to regulate speech in government-controlled places or programs—the Forum Doctrine. [1][2]
Essentially, government-controlled forums for speech are divided into three categories [which then determine what can or cannot be controlled.]"
That is of course begging the question as to whether a Twitter account qualifies as a government-controlled place or program. And there are major implications of this qualification, far beyond whether politicians are allowed to block people on Twitter. I do not think TV and online private discussion platform have much in common. And I'm sure companies like Twitter and Facebook will fight to try to keep it that way. Television has become somewhat deregulated, but it's still under infinitely more rules and regulations than social media today.
For instance the television rules against profanity and nudity did not come from television stations themselves - it was rules imposed on them by the FCC. A single slip of the word fuck was enough to subject stations to huge fines. The enforcement of those rules (huge fines in particular) was deemed unconstitutional only in 2010! There still mountains of other rules and regulations in place on television nonetheless. This is certainly not where social media sites want to find themselves.
And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that if it is decided the politicians cannot legally block people on Twitter then suddenly that swearing will be regulated against. That is clearly absurd. What I am saying is that the current state of social media is very much unlike other more traditional platforms, like television. And so comparison between them, as a form of precedent, is not terribly meaningful.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29
[2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums
"In creating social media accounts with these communication features, like a Facebook page with a comments section, or a Twitter account that permits tagging and replies, the government endows the public with First Amendment rights to speak in these forums.
The First Amendment forbids viewpoint-based speech restrictions like those that result from blocking. The legal doctrine that applies here is the same one that is used to determine the government’s ability to regulate speech in government-controlled places or programs—the Forum Doctrine. [1][2]
Essentially, government-controlled forums for speech are divided into three categories [which then determine what can or cannot be controlled.]"
That is of course begging the question as to whether a Twitter account qualifies as a government-controlled place or program. And there are major implications of this qualification, far beyond whether politicians are allowed to block people on Twitter. I do not think TV and online private discussion platform have much in common. And I'm sure companies like Twitter and Facebook will fight to try to keep it that way. Television has become somewhat deregulated, but it's still under infinitely more rules and regulations than social media today.
For instance the television rules against profanity and nudity did not come from television stations themselves - it was rules imposed on them by the FCC. A single slip of the word fuck was enough to subject stations to huge fines. The enforcement of those rules (huge fines in particular) was deemed unconstitutional only in 2010! There still mountains of other rules and regulations in place on television nonetheless. This is certainly not where social media sites want to find themselves.
And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that if it is decided the politicians cannot legally block people on Twitter then suddenly that swearing will be regulated against. That is clearly absurd. What I am saying is that the current state of social media is very much unlike other more traditional platforms, like television. And so comparison between them, as a form of precedent, is not terribly meaningful.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29
[2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums
And there are major implications of this qualification, far beyond whether politicians are allowed to block people on Twitter.
Why and how? I don't see how the restrictions on what governmental officials can do with their Twitter accounts will have "major implications". What's the step I'm missing?
Why and how? I don't see how the restrictions on what governmental officials can do with their Twitter accounts will have "major implications". What's the step I'm missing?
Law is built on qualifiers. Right now social media lacks a qualifier. This case is, as shown previously, seeking to qualify social media. The implications of such qualification would then hold for all precedent for entities of said qualifier such as a legal "open forum." That part is not speculative. What I would speculate is that such qualification may also spark government interest in more direct regulation of social media. It would be done under the pretext of 'clarifying legal uncertainty and ensuring fair protection under the law.'
Qualifiers are context-based (as lawyers usually put it, "X is Y for the purpose of section Z"). I don't see why would this qualification extend beyond this context.
It's an interesting argument, but in practical terms, who cares if the government can't censor your tweets when Twitter itself -- an arbitrary, non-transparent entity, with zero representation for users -- can censor your tweets?
It could be a nice first-step to more fair social media, though.
(People are arguing that twitter is not a public forum, it's just a private service, &c. Sure, maybe in origin, but practically speaking, twitter is probably the most important public forum there is right now. Being barred from twitter is a huge loss of ability to participate in civic life.)
It could be a nice first-step to more fair social media, though.
(People are arguing that twitter is not a public forum, it's just a private service, &c. Sure, maybe in origin, but practically speaking, twitter is probably the most important public forum there is right now. Being barred from twitter is a huge loss of ability to participate in civic life.)
I think the EFF is dead wrong here, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Aside from the trappings of fame itself, is there any precedent where a public official has been restricted from certain rights that they previously enjoyed in their private lives?
Maybe once you become an elected official, you can no longer chase people off your front lawn. They have a right to speak so maybe that's more important than your private property rights. Maybe they can demand you charge their iphones while they're protesting on your street corner? The government is paying for their salary anyway, shouldn't a protested politician be required to support the protestors in the name of free speech? How far does this go?
Maybe once you become an elected official, you can no longer chase people off your front lawn. They have a right to speak so maybe that's more important than your private property rights. Maybe they can demand you charge their iphones while they're protesting on your street corner? The government is paying for their salary anyway, shouldn't a protested politician be required to support the protestors in the name of free speech? How far does this go?
> Aside from the trappings of fame itself, is there any precedent where a public official has been restricted from certain rights that they previously enjoyed in their private lives?
In many jurisdictions, the emails and texts and other communiques you make in the course of your job or subject to public records request. That's not the case if you have a private job.
In many jurisdictions, the emails and texts and other communiques you make in the course of your job or subject to public records request. That's not the case if you have a private job.
well technically in the USA you have to put your capital in the hands of a blind trust years ago Jimmy Carter had to sell his farm when he became president
Here's where I part ways with the EFF's analysis: The article says, "the First Amendment doesn’t just protect your right to speak your mind. It also protects your right to receive, read, hear, see, and obtain information and ideas." (Italics added.)
The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I understand that there are literally dozens of bound volumes of case analysis that apply to the interpretation of this amendment by dozens of courts great and small, but I don't think any of them have gone so far as to say that I have a constitutional right to receive information in a certain medium. If a tweet is that important, some newspaper will reprint it.
The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I understand that there are literally dozens of bound volumes of case analysis that apply to the interpretation of this amendment by dozens of courts great and small, but I don't think any of them have gone so far as to say that I have a constitutional right to receive information in a certain medium. If a tweet is that important, some newspaper will reprint it.
Yep. This argument rests on shaky ground.
Frankly, I'm a little disappointed organizations like EFF or ACLU are wasting time on it. Surely there are plenty of bigger fish to fry in this horrorshow administration than Trump blocking people on Twitter.
Frankly, I'm a little disappointed organizations like EFF or ACLU are wasting time on it. Surely there are plenty of bigger fish to fry in this horrorshow administration than Trump blocking people on Twitter.
Legal cases are not just about the matter at hand. This can set the precedent on how the government can use private companies to evade the restrictions set upon it by the First Amendment.
This is true, but I think even more importantly, these actions go 100% against the spirit of the law. This article is basically arguing that the private sector can provide a public platform, which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right. It also restricts the right of the media or Twitter to remove Trump if they so wish to.
> which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive."
No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.
What does follow is that, if the forum the gov't is using does not protect this right to receive, then the gov't can be forced to use a different forum.
Which is how it should be. Malls shouldn't be allowed to shut down public debate on local tax policy just because the city council chooses to hold their public meetings in the food court.
Of course, the mall is free to perform that censorship. But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.
> By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right
Those "volumes of case law" already deal with this question in a multitude of ways.
No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.
What does follow is that, if the forum the gov't is using does not protect this right to receive, then the gov't can be forced to use a different forum.
Which is how it should be. Malls shouldn't be allowed to shut down public debate on local tax policy just because the city council chooses to hold their public meetings in the food court.
Of course, the mall is free to perform that censorship. But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.
> By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed right
Those "volumes of case law" already deal with this question in a multitude of ways.
> No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.
Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up (or else they have broken it as a platform for free speech).
> But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.
The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government. As a better example, I would say you have a private establishment like a hotel where the meeting is happening. You have a conference room reserved and the public is welcome to come in to observe. If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed). In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech. The issue here, is that the EFF is asserting that if the President chooses to talk to someone in the hotel lobby (somewhere that anyone can listen, but not somewhere that is meant to be official government communications), then that has suddenly become protected.
Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up (or else they have broken it as a platform for free speech).
> But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.
The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government. As a better example, I would say you have a private establishment like a hotel where the meeting is happening. You have a conference room reserved and the public is welcome to come in to observe. If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed). In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech. The issue here, is that the EFF is asserting that if the President chooses to talk to someone in the hotel lobby (somewhere that anyone can listen, but not somewhere that is meant to be official government communications), then that has suddenly become protected.
> Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up
This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of THIS lawsuit would be an injunction against Twitter.
So unless you have a very compelling legal argument...
> The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government
Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is even stronger. It's not just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an even more obvious restriction on speech...
> If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed).
Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for the city council to host their meeting in that hotel.
> In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy.
Yes.
> So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech.
And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make two different restrictions on speech?
More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.
This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of THIS lawsuit would be an injunction against Twitter.
So unless you have a very compelling legal argument...
> The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government
Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is even stronger. It's not just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an even more obvious restriction on speech...
> If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed).
Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for the city council to host their meeting in that hotel.
> In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy.
Yes.
> So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech.
And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make two different restrictions on speech?
More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.
No, Twitter's actions aren't restricted at all by the First Amendment. They are free to block anyone they want or change for access if they want to.
The government, however, is bound by the First Amendment to choose a communication platform that is compatible with the requirements of the First Amendment. If Twitter restricts use in such a way that people cannot freely use it, then the government is obligated to stop using Twitter as a communications platform.
The government, however, is bound by the First Amendment to choose a communication platform that is compatible with the requirements of the First Amendment. If Twitter restricts use in such a way that people cannot freely use it, then the government is obligated to stop using Twitter as a communications platform.
> If Twitter restricts use in such a way that people cannot freely use it, ...
Valid point, but does blocking someone prevent them from using Twitter? I think not. One can always create a new account unlike in real life.
Valid point, but does blocking someone prevent them from using Twitter? I think not. One can always create a new account unlike in real life.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't get how somebody can argue for this as a first amendment right. The first amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that you can say anything you want anywhere you want (keyword: anywhere). The Supreme Court has ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional. For example, the government can restrict you from standing at the door of an abortion clinic and protesting, but cannot prevent you from protesting abortions publicly. This case seems like a pretty clear-cut example: you are not being censored by saying that you cannot tweet directly to President Trump, as long as you still have the right to publicly state your views. The fact that the speech doesn't make it to the ears of the President has never been a concern with free speech. The goal is to allow people to assemble and share their views with those who wish to listen. If Trump wears noise-cancelling headphones while passing by a protest, is he infringing upon your right to free speech? The thing here is that the tweets still do get sent out, and it's not like you're shadow-banned. The President has opted-out of viewing your tweets, just like how wearing noise-cancelling headphones is opting out of hearing your speech.
More importantly, it is still important to note that they have not stopped your ability to actually speak to the President. You can send a letter in the mail or protest in front of the White House if you so wish to. It also creates a sticky situation when you think of the consequences of Twitter banning a user. If Twitter is to be considered a protected "free speech zone," the company loses the right to ban users.
Fundamentally, this situation is nothing like what the first amendment has ever been applied to. It's not even really a debate on freedom of speech, but rather a right to audience. Is it within your constitutionally-protected right to have an audience? Based on what the Bill of Rights represents, I would argue that any such restriction is against the spirit of the document. The point of the document is to protect the individual from the government, not coerce the government or individuals into action -- if this becomes a protected mode of free speech, Twitter is coerced into allowing all messages to be published to anyone.
I don't get how somebody can argue for this as a first amendment right. The first amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that you can say anything you want anywhere you want (keyword: anywhere). The Supreme Court has ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional. For example, the government can restrict you from standing at the door of an abortion clinic and protesting, but cannot prevent you from protesting abortions publicly. This case seems like a pretty clear-cut example: you are not being censored by saying that you cannot tweet directly to President Trump, as long as you still have the right to publicly state your views. The fact that the speech doesn't make it to the ears of the President has never been a concern with free speech. The goal is to allow people to assemble and share their views with those who wish to listen. If Trump wears noise-cancelling headphones while passing by a protest, is he infringing upon your right to free speech? The thing here is that the tweets still do get sent out, and it's not like you're shadow-banned. The President has opted-out of viewing your tweets, just like how wearing noise-cancelling headphones is opting out of hearing your speech.
More importantly, it is still important to note that they have not stopped your ability to actually speak to the President. You can send a letter in the mail or protest in front of the White House if you so wish to. It also creates a sticky situation when you think of the consequences of Twitter banning a user. If Twitter is to be considered a protected "free speech zone," the company loses the right to ban users.
Fundamentally, this situation is nothing like what the first amendment has ever been applied to. It's not even really a debate on freedom of speech, but rather a right to audience. Is it within your constitutionally-protected right to have an audience? Based on what the Bill of Rights represents, I would argue that any such restriction is against the spirit of the document. The point of the document is to protect the individual from the government, not coerce the government or individuals into action -- if this becomes a protected mode of free speech, Twitter is coerced into allowing all messages to be published to anyone.
The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum, not just your own tweets but also re-tweets and replies. By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them.
Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content, beyond policing for obscenity and threats (though even that would be at issue in this case, since the President himself has used these forms of speech).
Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content, beyond policing for obscenity and threats (though even that would be at issue in this case, since the President himself has used these forms of speech).
>The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum
The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into certain actions (censoring anything would be illegal).
>By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them.
When did he declare that? As far as I know, the only people who have said that are staunchly anti-Trump.
>Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument.
I get what you are saying, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is enough to be considered free speech in the past.
>If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content
Who is "you"? This applies to the government, but a private organization need not follow these laws. And at what point has Twitter declared itself to be an open microphone to free speech? I guess you mean that this applies to Trump's Twitter account, but I don't think it has ever been meant to be an open microphone. That is like saying that if Trump were to publish his phone number online it would instantly imply that he's using it to receive public opinions on politics. His Twitter account has existed since long before he became President, so in my opinion it's disingenuous to say that it should be an "open microphone," because do we really expect him to stop using his Twitter/Facebook/whatever accounts just because he's a politician?
The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into certain actions (censoring anything would be illegal).
>By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them.
When did he declare that? As far as I know, the only people who have said that are staunchly anti-Trump.
>Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument.
I get what you are saying, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is enough to be considered free speech in the past.
>If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate that speech based on content
Who is "you"? This applies to the government, but a private organization need not follow these laws. And at what point has Twitter declared itself to be an open microphone to free speech? I guess you mean that this applies to Trump's Twitter account, but I don't think it has ever been meant to be an open microphone. That is like saying that if Trump were to publish his phone number online it would instantly imply that he's using it to receive public opinions on politics. His Twitter account has existed since long before he became President, so in my opinion it's disingenuous to say that it should be an "open microphone," because do we really expect him to stop using his Twitter/Facebook/whatever accounts just because he's a politician?
Commenting on my phone so it’s hard to do in-line:
1. Sean Spicer is among the government officials who said that Trump’s tweets represent official statements. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/poli...
2. Nobody is trying to compel Twitter to do anything here. They are not a party to the suit. The onus is on Trump to act according to the relevant law by not blocking people; or by not posting on Twitter if he can’t abide by the rules imposed by the law.
3. Sorry for the ambiguous pronoun. Twitter creates the rules for their platform, Trump decides to participate there. By doing so, he is explicitly choosing to participate in a forum discussion, which carries certain consequences (as TFA mentions). If he did not want to let people speak in rebuttal, he could write a blog with comments turned off, or broadcast a weekly radio address. What he can’t do, as a government official, is participate in a public forum in an official capacity, and then silence or demote dissenting speech.
1. Sean Spicer is among the government officials who said that Trump’s tweets represent official statements. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/poli...
2. Nobody is trying to compel Twitter to do anything here. They are not a party to the suit. The onus is on Trump to act according to the relevant law by not blocking people; or by not posting on Twitter if he can’t abide by the rules imposed by the law.
3. Sorry for the ambiguous pronoun. Twitter creates the rules for their platform, Trump decides to participate there. By doing so, he is explicitly choosing to participate in a forum discussion, which carries certain consequences (as TFA mentions). If he did not want to let people speak in rebuttal, he could write a blog with comments turned off, or broadcast a weekly radio address. What he can’t do, as a government official, is participate in a public forum in an official capacity, and then silence or demote dissenting speech.
Trump admitted that he blocked people because he disagreed with their viewpoint. That is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. Time, place and manner restrictions are okay; viewpoint based restrictions are not.
Twitter is also not being restricted at all. They can block anyone that they want. The government, however, must choose a platform that is compatible with people's First Amendment rights, so if Twitter starts being overly restrictive the government must choose a different platform to use.
Twitter is also not being restricted at all. They can block anyone that they want. The government, however, must choose a platform that is compatible with people's First Amendment rights, so if Twitter starts being overly restrictive the government must choose a different platform to use.
> That is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
The problem is, he has not censored their speech. The message still goes out, it just never reaches Trump's mailbox. Like I stated in the above comment, the First Amendment does not guarantee an audience. Trump has not stopped messages from being tweeted, just from those tweets reaching him.
> Twitter is also not being restricted at all. They can block anyone that they want.
By setting a precedent that Twitter, as a private organization, can be the provider of a public space for free speech, does that not force them to keep everyone's views on the platform?
The problem is, he has not censored their speech. The message still goes out, it just never reaches Trump's mailbox. Like I stated in the above comment, the First Amendment does not guarantee an audience. Trump has not stopped messages from being tweeted, just from those tweets reaching him.
> Twitter is also not being restricted at all. They can block anyone that they want.
By setting a precedent that Twitter, as a private organization, can be the provider of a public space for free speech, does that not force them to keep everyone's views on the platform?
> Trump has not stopped messages from being tweeted, just from those tweets reaching him.
Incorrect. You are describing what would happen if he "muted" the accounts. He didn't do that; he "blocked" them. That has much broader effects such as preventing them from following his messages or publicly replying to his messages. He has created a public forum with his tweets and then allowed some people to participate in that forum and disallowed some people from participating solely based on their viewpoints. That is textbook censorship.
> By setting a precedent that Twitter, as a private organization, can be the provider of a public space for free speech, does that not force them to keep everyone's views on the platform?
No. Twitter is not forced to do anything. Trump is forced to choose a communications platform that is compatible with his First Amendment obligations. If Twitter does not allow him to meet those obligations he must choose a different communications platform. He cannot avoid the First Amendment simply by conducting his communications through a third party.
Incorrect. You are describing what would happen if he "muted" the accounts. He didn't do that; he "blocked" them. That has much broader effects such as preventing them from following his messages or publicly replying to his messages. He has created a public forum with his tweets and then allowed some people to participate in that forum and disallowed some people from participating solely based on their viewpoints. That is textbook censorship.
> By setting a precedent that Twitter, as a private organization, can be the provider of a public space for free speech, does that not force them to keep everyone's views on the platform?
No. Twitter is not forced to do anything. Trump is forced to choose a communications platform that is compatible with his First Amendment obligations. If Twitter does not allow him to meet those obligations he must choose a different communications platform. He cannot avoid the First Amendment simply by conducting his communications through a third party.
Someone blocked by president trump can still read his tweets because Twitter does not prevent you from having multiple accounts.
On the notion of free speech, twitter does not block users from tweeting stances in their own feeds.
To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news to provide a 1 hour block at midnight that allows 1 minute video segments from angry people that want to shout at the president. It's not going to happen.
The first amendment was about making it legal to shout from the rooftops, but not a requirement that all mediums re-shout it for you.
If you want to start a newspaper in the US, no one is stopping you.
To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news to provide a 1 hour block at midnight that allows 1 minute video segments from angry people that want to shout at the president. It's not going to happen.
The first amendment was about making it legal to shout from the rooftops, but not a requirement that all mediums re-shout it for you.
If you want to start a newspaper in the US, no one is stopping you.
The article discusses this and says that citizens should not have to find technical workarounds. The government can’t make it more difficult to receive communications in this way. Private citizens on rooftops is different than government communications.
If someone blocks you on Twitter, can you still refer to their account using their handle, and their tweets using the URL? If not, then that is an infringement of speech. We should be able to refer to the president's remarks, for instance; otherwise we are hindered from processing that information.
Even if Twitter had some capability to block WhitePower.com or BlackPower.com from showing Tweets, referring to a instance of a communication can always be done the old fashioned way:
Example: This week the New York Times interviewed the president who said "I love people."
No more issues - everyone is allowed to share, read, and post their own views on the mediums that will allow, and are capable of creating their own medium in the US.
Example: This week the New York Times interviewed the president who said "I love people."
No more issues - everyone is allowed to share, read, and post their own views on the mediums that will allow, and are capable of creating their own medium in the US.
To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news
No, this is a restriction on the government itself, not on Twitter. The point is that the government shouldn't be able to bypass restrictions on its powers by using private companies.
No, this is a restriction on the government itself, not on Twitter. The point is that the government shouldn't be able to bypass restrictions on its powers by using private companies.
The core argument is that a private space (Twitter) can be a protected free speech zone. By that argument, nobody (including Twitter) can restrict those rights on the platform.
No, I don't think there's anything like a binary "protected free speech zone" property. It's always context-specific. They used the example of Television, where the government is restricted from blocking its official communications to certain people, yet that doesn't mean the channel itself can't choose what gets shown.
This is specific to the First Amendment restrictions on government, which don't apply to Twitter, as a private company. (IANAL)
This is specific to the First Amendment restrictions on government, which don't apply to Twitter, as a private company. (IANAL)
You are mixing the two arguments being made, i.e. the right to be heard and the right to hear. Your argument is in favor of the right to hear what Trump says, but the point where it becomes a "free speech zone" is when it is about whether you're allowed to speak. To try and make blocking people on Twitter illegal for a politician means that they cannot censor those people _on Twitter_. There is no analogue for this in a 1-way communication system like TV.
Exactly right, and the article very clearly lays out this difference. A TV channel is more like the library’s official announcement board discussed in TFA. There is no expectation of, or right to, speech for anyone but the speaker, and that’s fine.
However, Twitter is a forum where everyone has a voice, and the President is using tools available on the platform to decide who gets to participate in the discussion by reading and responding to his tweets. It would be like saying, “fans of the library can post on the open message board in the lobby. Haters, you can use the message board down by the bathrooms.”
Point is, the EFF’s argument is that either everyone gets a say, or not — you can’t curate speech in a public forum based upon content, if you are a public official. And, make no mistake, Trump is the one hitting that “Block” button.
However, Twitter is a forum where everyone has a voice, and the President is using tools available on the platform to decide who gets to participate in the discussion by reading and responding to his tweets. It would be like saying, “fans of the library can post on the open message board in the lobby. Haters, you can use the message board down by the bathrooms.”
Point is, the EFF’s argument is that either everyone gets a say, or not — you can’t curate speech in a public forum based upon content, if you are a public official. And, make no mistake, Trump is the one hitting that “Block” button.
Yes, there is no expectation on TV that there will be live replies from anonymous people. And just like that expectation, there is the expectation that people can block other people and that is working exactly as it works for any other twitter user.
You misunderstand the article. There is no requirement to facilitate public comment - the President can give a speech and not take any questions, and even escort out anyone who disrupts his speech.
What he can not do is participate in what is advertised to be a public forum, and then pick and choose which people and ideas he allows to be heard.
If he wants to speak un-contested, he should start a blog, or give a weekly radio address.
What he can not do is participate in what is advertised to be a public forum, and then pick and choose which people and ideas he allows to be heard.
If he wants to speak un-contested, he should start a blog, or give a weekly radio address.
Does this mean I can't block anyone?
There were 65.8M votes for Hillary. They're gonna need a lot of WH interns to set up that many blocks.
> They're gonna need a lot of WH interns to set up that many blocks.
* An AI that checks if you are politically aligned with the current government, or a trouble maker.
* An AI that checks if you are politically aligned with the current government, or a trouble maker.
Another argument for Twitter becoming a public good! Maybe then I can finally sell my shares for a profit.
If Twitter is a public forum then should they be allow to even ban accounts? Also, can officials have private accounts? In the case of Trump, maybe he isn't allowed to ban people from the @POTUS account but is allowed to ban them from his private @realDonaldTrump account.
If Twitter is a public forum then should they be allow to even ban accounts?
I don't think the statement is "Twitter is a public forum" but "the Twitter accounts of government officials using in their official capacity make those accounts public forums in the context of the First Amendment restrictions on governmental intervention".
So I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can or cannot do.
Also, can officials have private accounts?
IANAL: probably, but only as long as they don't use it in their capacity as officials. Which Trump does with @realDonaldTrump.
I don't think the statement is "Twitter is a public forum" but "the Twitter accounts of government officials using in their official capacity make those accounts public forums in the context of the First Amendment restrictions on governmental intervention".
So I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can or cannot do.
Also, can officials have private accounts?
IANAL: probably, but only as long as they don't use it in their capacity as officials. Which Trump does with @realDonaldTrump.
Both of these points were covered in the article. It’s not about public/private fora. They argue (with case law) that when the government uses a private venue in a public way, it becomes public.
Additionally they only argue that @realDonaldTrump is a government account because the government itself has stated that the posts from that account represent official statements by the President. More generally, they mention cases where the FOIA applies to emails sent through a private account when the communications are discussing government matters.
Additionally they only argue that @realDonaldTrump is a government account because the government itself has stated that the posts from that account represent official statements by the President. More generally, they mention cases where the FOIA applies to emails sent through a private account when the communications are discussing government matters.
[deleted]
> We frequently receive reports from community activists and other social media users who were blocked from commenting on an agency’s Facebook page, or prevented from contributing to a community discussion prompted by an officials’ tweet, or have faced similar barriers to participation in public debate. We receive reports about how governmental officials manipulate social media comments to exclude opposing views to create the impression that hotly contested policies are not contested at all. And we realize, in seeing how agencies use social media to quickly disseminate emergency information during the recent spate of natural disasters, that the ability to receive such messages can be a matter of life and death.
This is really the crux of why it's a First Amendment issue -- because that amendment is meant to protect discussion from that sort of manipulation by government.
This is really the crux of why it's a First Amendment issue -- because that amendment is meant to protect discussion from that sort of manipulation by government.
In the full title, the antecedent for "them" is "Tweets"
I had to butcher the title to fit, HN mods are welcome to unbutcher it. I really hate having to do that, but EFF tends to have overly verbose headlines.
OK, we've butchered it differently and updated it from “Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment On, and Reply to Them”.
Nobody would have to butcher anything if you removed the character limit on titles, or at least increased it to a more reasonable default. I doubt even many HN users are browsing from an 80 column terminal, so the restriction seems not to serve much purpose.
You could also cut the titles off at the nearest word add an ellipsis and a tooltip so people could read the entire thing without sacrificing canvas space - which might also improve accessibility.
Each would seem to be a better option than constantly trying to make titles fit into an arbitrarily restrictive space.
You could also cut the titles off at the nearest word add an ellipsis and a tooltip so people could read the entire thing without sacrificing canvas space - which might also improve accessibility.
Each would seem to be a better option than constantly trying to make titles fit into an arbitrarily restrictive space.
How is this different than real life?
But if US citizens are allowed to block president's twitter, then there is an impasse of communication. So US citizens should not be allowed to block the president either.
I don't understand this argument. This seems like the equivalent of not attending said public forum. I'm not aware of any law against that, although I personally think it is a bad idea.
what's the point of forcing the president to accept a grievance if it's not possible for him to respond?
By your logic, city councils should not host any public Q&A sessions if even a single citizen in the city says they will refuse to attend.
That's clearly an absurd position.
That's clearly an absurd position.
no the analogy would be that if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request or wear earplugs. i am trying to follow the argument eff is making here and i also see that it leads to absurd conclusions
but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck
but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck
> if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request
Well, presumably at least some of the people in the lawsuit didn't block Trump.
> but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck
It's not an analogy, it's a general principle and the application thereof to a multitude of circumstances to test that principle's reasonableness.
The constitution does not and never will have a special subsection of the first amendment on Twitter and Social Media.
Well, presumably at least some of the people in the lawsuit didn't block Trump.
> but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck
It's not an analogy, it's a general principle and the application thereof to a multitude of circumstances to test that principle's reasonableness.
The constitution does not and never will have a special subsection of the first amendment on Twitter and Social Media.
There is a built-in asymmetry in public service - what you describe would certainly be odd, and rude, but the obligation is on the mayor, and the citizen has no corresponding obligation to listen in reply.
[deleted]
No, under the US Constitution (and probably most others) the government is restricted in ways that private citizens aren't.
This is interesting.
Why would Hillary blocking RogerStone be against free speech when he can still use the platform to tweet. The first amendment does not mean someone has to listen to you. You just have to have the ability to disseminate ideas.
On the other hand, twitter suspending Hillary or Roger Stone, even being a private company, is more a direct threat to speech, given the stranglehold Goog-Twitt-Book have on communication.
It seems to me EFF have things a bit backwards here.
Why would Hillary blocking RogerStone be against free speech when he can still use the platform to tweet. The first amendment does not mean someone has to listen to you. You just have to have the ability to disseminate ideas.
On the other hand, twitter suspending Hillary or Roger Stone, even being a private company, is more a direct threat to speech, given the stranglehold Goog-Twitt-Book have on communication.
It seems to me EFF have things a bit backwards here.
Being a "threat to speech" is irrelevant - what matters is the law, specifically the First Amendment, and that imposes restrictions on government and its officials that it doesn't on private individuals and companies.
As for Hillary, the point is that RogerStone can no longer receive her messages (and directly comment them) and tag her on his Tweets to others. If she doesn't want to listen to him, she still can mute him, but blocking imposes restrictions on his speech.
As for Hillary, the point is that RogerStone can no longer receive her messages (and directly comment them) and tag her on his Tweets to others. If she doesn't want to listen to him, she still can mute him, but blocking imposes restrictions on his speech.
What happens when those companies become an oligopoly or monopoly on speech?
What if the gov't uses twitter as it's only diffusion platform and what if them Twitter suspends say US EPA or Education twitter handles because they violate "ToS"? Since people can't in that case comms with gov't orgs, does that encumber free speech?
What if the gov't uses twitter as it's only diffusion platform and what if them Twitter suspends say US EPA or Education twitter handles because they violate "ToS"? Since people can't in that case comms with gov't orgs, does that encumber free speech?
Does that encumber free speech? Maybe. Is it illegal? I don't think so.
If the government can't communicate because it only uses Twitter, then I think the answer is "don't do that". The government can always use its own means of communication.
If the government can't communicate because it only uses Twitter, then I think the answer is "don't do that". The government can always use its own means of communication.
Certainly they could revert to phone and snail mail, which was the prev status quo. However, that would be to the detriment of the people.
Or they can host their own sites...
They could also roll their own "Twitter" like microblogging service...
But I don't think we'd consider that a solution.
But I don't think we'd consider that a solution.
Actually... that sounds like a good idea to me.
Except for the part where no one would pay attention to it because it's Twitter, and the part where the government controls the platform, making internal surveillance and censorship inevitable. It would probably just wind up a PR machine for the party in power.
But government employees, from the President all the way down to, say, interns having an official and direct means of communication with the people, on public record? I'm all for it.
Except for the part where no one would pay attention to it because it's Twitter, and the part where the government controls the platform, making internal surveillance and censorship inevitable. It would probably just wind up a PR machine for the party in power.
But government employees, from the President all the way down to, say, interns having an official and direct means of communication with the people, on public record? I'm all for it.
This is what I was thinking. If the Trump org started their own Mastodon instance and syndicated it to Twitter/FB using their APIs, I wonder what might happen. They'd have to restrict signups, but if they provided a read-only, http version (cached) that could be interesting.
To use a meat-space analogy. Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not. While there is generally no free speech right in a private venue like a mall, where the government creates in effect a public forum on private property, it has to abide by the First Amendment.
Were the law otherwise, government officials could insulate themselves from criticism simply by making speeches in hotel ballrooms and the like. That is, in effect, what Trump is trying to do with his Twitter feed.