Blocked on Media: Elected Officials blocking constituents (1 Viewer)

[Lutherman2112]

Reading the local paper this morning I came across an article about the WV ACLU sending notices to elected officials that blocking constituents on social media is a violation of First Amendment rights. Has anyone else seen this in their state? From acluwv.org:

BLOCKED ON SOCIAL: NINE ELECTED OFFICIALS, POLICE DEPT. PUT ON NOTICE

FEBRUARY 5, 2020 - 3:00PM

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Nine elected West Virginia officials and one police department have been notified that they are violating the First Amendment rights of their constituents who they have blocked on Facebook and Twitter. 

...

The U.S. Supreme Court has referred to social media as a “modern public square.” When a government official cuts off access to a public square because of a constituent’s viewpoint, they are depriving that person of their rights under both the federal and state constitutions, said ACLU-WV Legal Director Loree Stark, who issued the notices.

“It’s unacceptable for public officials to deny their constituents access because of a differing viewpoint,” Stark said. “And it is just as unconstitutional to bar a constituent from engaging on an official social media account because they disagree with you as it is to ban someone from a town hall event.”

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that an elected official engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when she banned a constituent on Facebook.

 

[The Commish]

This happened with Trump as well.  He decided to use his personal twitter instead of @POTUS and was sued when he started blocking people.  It was ruled that he couldn't block people and that his twitter account had become part of the official record moving forward.  Of course, he probably still has people blocked and deletes things he shouldn't, but hey...who cares right?

 

[joffer]

they need the ignore feature

 

[rockaction]

Fascinating OP. Thanks, Lutherman2112. I never would have thought it were so. 

I'm not sure what I think of that...

 

[rockaction]

they need the ignore feature

or a...wait for it...public/private option!

 

[Lutherman2112]

Fascinating OP. Thanks, Lutherman2112. I never would have thought it were so. 

I'm not sure what I think of that...

C'mon, crack open that thesaurus of yours. You can come up with something. Maybe some obscure lyrics or poetry?

 

[rockaction]

C'mon, crack open that thesaurus of yours. You can come up with something. Maybe some obscure lyrics or poetry?

I'm afraid I'd be stuck with starting to discuss cross-doctrinal notions of when private citizens become public for First Amendment purposes. A lot of it centers on the notion of the personal/political or personal/work divide. Maybe the best doctrinal guidance we can get in is privacy law, especially regarding that which is newsworthy. Another thing to address would be how much access to speech we're allowed in both the public and private sphere...

interesting. 

Not much poetic there, though there certainly flows from the First Amendment at least the unfettered means to compose a lyric, I guess. 

 

[rockaction]

The Second Circuit followed the Fourth in its reasoning.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/civil-rights/practice/2019/blocking-social/

 

[Dickies]

If someone is being threatening then I think blocking them should be acceptable. It seems like a better solution than punishing them as if they made threats at a town hall event.

If they are being blocked for being critical of the politician (as Trump has done) then I don’t think that should be allowed. 

 

[jonessed]

If someone is being threatening then I think blocking them should be acceptable. It seems like a better solution than punishing them as if they made threats at a town hall event.

If they are being blocked for being critical of the politician (as Trump has done) then I don’t think that should be allowed. 

If the threat is illegal/criminal in content then charges should be pressed.  If the language is legal then I don’t really care how the politician takes it.  It shouldn’t be blocked.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

No shortage of cowards these days is there? 

 

[parasaurolophus]

If someone is being threatening then I think blocking them should be acceptable. It seems like a better solution than punishing them as if they made threats at a town hall event.

If they are being blocked for being critical of the politician (as Trump has done) then I don’t think that should be allowed. 

If that were true, as joe says, they should be reported and let twitter or the authorities take care of it. Thats usually just an excuse to avoid criticism. 

 

[BladeRunner]

This happened with Trump as well.  He decided to use his personal twitter instead of @POTUS and was sued when he started blocking people.  It was ruled that he couldn't block people and that his twitter account had become part of the official record moving forward.  Of course, he probably still has people blocked and deletes things he shouldn't, but hey...who cares right?

Yep.  AOC was/is doing the same thing.

Not cool from any elected official.