Court rules public figures cannot block citizens on social media

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
Fourth Circuit Court ruled that for a public official to block a citizen from commenting on the official's social media page is a violation of the 1st Amendment. A Facebook page is a "public forum" and must accept all comments.

"During one town hall meeting involving Randall, Davison had suggested that some financial improprieties were afoot. Within hours, Davison left a lengthy Facebook post on Randall's page, and she banned him. The next day, she reversed course and unbanned him, but his post remained deleted.

Not long after, Davison sued, alleging violations of his constitutional rights, and he eventually won at trial. The county chair then appealed to the 4th Circuit, which ultimately ruled that Randall's Facebook page "bear the hallmarks of a public forum," where public speech—however undesirable—cannot be discriminated against."


This is good news for anyone who engages in dialogue with elected or public officials. No word on whether this ruling will be challenged in higher court.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,913
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
Hm.

I'm glad the judge suggests further thought about the First Amendment and social media. On the surface--yeah, a public servant has no business silencing the public, and a politician's Facebook page seems no different than, say, a town hall.

But as someone with a FB business page who's blocked a few people...hm. Even at a town hall, it's legal to remove someone overly disruptive, isn't it?
 

PyriteFool

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
370
Reaction score
72
I love the First Amendment, but I don’t know how I feel about Facebook being ruled a “public forum.” It’s a privately owned company, I’m suuuuuuper leery of giving them that kind of power over the discourse.

Then again, I’m no lawyer, so maybe I’m reading too much into it.

I agree on harassment provisions, but those could probably fall under the normal First Amendment exceptions (true threats, libel, legal harassment etc.) Again, I’m no lawyer, just an enthusiastic amateur.
 

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
I thought of those kinds of situations too, and yes in public meetings people are removed all the time these days. (More than I believe is fair or correct.) Maybe some rule excepting harassment would be good, and yet that becomes a "where do you draw the line?" situation real quick.

So all in all I prefer the doors to public commentary stay wide open.

Edit: PyriteFool, I am not seeing how this gives FB any more power than it has already amassed to itself. On the contrary it seems to limit that power, potentially. (No lawyer here either.)

Be curious to see if this goes further in courts though.
 
Last edited:

Technophobe

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
21
Yeah, there should be an exception for harassment. I also think this won't effect most people. There's a difference between a government official banning someone from commenting on their Official Government-Interacts-With-The-Public page, and a private citizen doing the same thing. Even if it's a business page, as long as the business is privately owned, they should be fine. The First Amendment protects people from being silenced by the government, not other citizens. The admins being able to kick people off this very message board is a good example of what I mean.
 

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
It affects citizens who would make comments on a public official's page that that official might not like to see broadcast, such as in this case an accusation of financial misconduct. If we care about our ability to curtail excesses of power by those who hold public responsibility, then this does affect all of us. I myself am unlikely to be going to a public official's page and making a comment that might get me banned, but I don't want people silenced from "speaking truth to power" as the saying has it. This is not about harassment and yes there is a difference between harassment and calling out a public figure for (perceived) misdeeds, though there's probably a lot of difference of opinion about where that line is.

There is also a difference between social media and privately run forums. Sure Facebook is a privately owned business but it has long ago entered monopoly territory and as such needs to be regulated. (I realize that's not a universally agreed on position either!) Facebook is today's Ma Bell, in that regard.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,913
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
It affects citizens who would make comments on a public official's page that that official might not like to see broadcast, such as in this case an accusation of financial misconduct.

Which anyone who dislikes this politician for any reason is going to assume is legitimate, with or without proof.

Maybe it is; I don't know. But we have due process for criminal allegations for a lot of reasons, one of which is to protect people from false accusations.

Politicians lie all the time. People lie about politicians all the time. Maybe they should be in a special category - the First Amendment has to do with government speech, so perhaps the business pages of politicians should be viewed differently.

Of course that doesn't deal with the harassment issue at all, but social media's been successfully dodging that one for long enough now that I don't think anyone really expects them to come up with anything anymore.

ETA: I don't think Facebook will ever be regulated, at least not in any effective way. My own personal unpopular opinion? If it's become a true public square subject to the First Amendment, it should be taxpayer-owned and funded. Ditto Twitter.
 
Last edited:

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,577
Reaction score
7,220
Location
Wash., D.C. area
I also wonder about the legal line between an official speaking on their own behalf, and in their official capacity. The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in political activities on official time, and from other activities at all (see toward the bottom of the article). There aren't as many restrictions on what they do on their personal time, and there might be other laws that dictate social media and press statements. Technically, just because a person holds office or gets a paycheck from the government doesn't mean they are at all times acting in an official capacity. I can see someone arguing that their personal Twitter account activities if done on personal time could be protected and they can block whoever they wish. How do we distinguish between a personal account and an official account? I don't want to endlessly quibble, but at what point does an elected official (president, Statehouse rep, schoolboard member) lose the right to participate in social media in their personal capacity?

That said, politicians face (as they should) accountability for their private statements all the time.

These questions will need to be answered in a way that complies with existing laws, or those laws changed.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com

Since when are harassment and overt threats of violence considered to be protected political speech, even when the recipient is a public official? What the actual fuck?

I completely agree that public officials shouldn't be allowed to ban debate and conflicting opinions from their official social media pages (the way a certain POTUS does on twitter), but if someone is threatening and harassing them...
 
Last edited:

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,913
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I completely agree that public officials shouldn't be allowed to ban debate and conflicting opinions from their official social media pages (the way a certain POTUS does on twitter), but if someone is threatening and harassing them...

I think the problem is our definitions. There are plenty of people who feel that the sort of behaviors that have caused people to flee the internet (never mind their homes) is somehow defensible as "free speech" - at least when they share ideology with the speakers.

There's also the fact that social media companies are currently left to police themselves on this front, and they do an altogether abysmal job of it.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think the problem is our definitions. There are plenty of people who feel that the sort of behaviors that have caused people to flee the internet (never mind their homes) is somehow defensible as "free speech" - at least when they share ideology with the speakers.

There's also the fact that social media companies are currently left to police themselves on this front, and they do an altogether abysmal job of it.

Very true, but it seems to me that the line isn't all that fuzzy.

There is a pretty clear difference between saying, "I hate you and everything you stand for and wish you would die" vs saying "I hate you and everything you stand for and I am going to do X, Y or Z to you and yours." One is a hateful statement that may or may not be political in nature, but it doesn't overtly threaten or show personal intent to harm. The other does. I'd argue that stalking someone and leaving symbols historically associated with murder around their home or person (nooses, burning crosses etc) would also be pretty blatant threats. Since when is lynching, or threat to lynch, a protected form of political expression?

And there ARE laws on the books in every state against stalking and harassing people (particularly people of protected classes). So if (say) one of my exes decides to stalk me, he can do so if he makes a case that his motivation is political (because he finds my feminism offensive or something)? And I can be sexually harassed and threatened at work if the person doing so claims that their motive is political? Ridiculous.

Perhaps a good yardstick would be that if one were to send a letter to the POTUS making the same threats, or engaging in the same kind of stalking and harassing behavior, would it be taken seriously? It is illegal (a felony) to threaten the President. Why is it protected free speech to threaten other officials (or private individuals for that matter) if it isn't to threaten the POTUS? It's not about politics here, because certainly of all citizens, the president is the most potent as a political symbol that people have the Constitutional right to criticize and lambast. So there is ample precedent for differentiating between political speech and threats.

I suspect there is a profound lack of empathy here, especially with regards to the kinds of threats that are particular to members of some groups but not those who are traditionally in power. A white person may not understand (though anyone who has studied history damned well should) how profoundly threatening a noose is to someone for whom lynching is a real historical threat, and a man may not understand how profoundly threatening statements of intent to rape would be for women, for whom the perfectly realistic fear of sexual violence is always there in the background at least.
 
Last edited: