This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1477261
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1477261
1 Like
Free speech for me, but not for thee!
Meow, meow,
18 Likes
Sigh… Rodney King’s voice echoes: " Can’t we all just get along?"
3 Likes
Wow if the SC decides that public officials can’t block people on their “official” social media pages then I might just get unblocked by my US Rep after all these years.
Seems to me if you’re an elected official, and have a personal page then you can block who you want. But you can’t post statements about your official position. If you have a FB page with your official position listed then you can’t block people. And if someone starts posting items that don’t belong on your personal page you should at the very least tell them to go to your official page before blocking them.
32 Likes
Do you have First Amendment Rights in private social media space?
2 Likes
O/T still at it I see
Proud Boys clash with protestors at Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 6 anniversary (msn.com)
4 Likes
Stop calling it “X”. It’s still Twitter. Calling it “X” is just you doing subservience to the worst person in the world.
21 Likes
“It’s my Xitter and I’ll block it if I want to.” I wonder how a ruling might effect Musk? Trump?
12 Likes
When does a private individual become a public individual? I think that people of high notoriety are public individuals whether they like it or not. Donald Trump will never be a “private individual” on social media as long as he identifies himself as Donald Trump.
10 Likes
I can see both sides of this. But I can also see how letting someone have free posting rights without the risk of blocking can actually suppress free speech of others as well as make some potential candidates question why run for a school board at all if you can be freely harassed afterwards forever. The type of person I’m thinking of are the ones who post enormous numbers of times a day on a group or someone else’s social media, posts the same troll message as a reply to everyone else’s posts and comments even when off topic, fills the page with their viewpoint, oftentimes making rude or crude comments, and makes it so no one else wants to wade through all their crap. Some of these people also team up with 1 or 2 others to flood a page so competing messages are suppressed. This can happen in real life too at open meetings, so they have rules for how much time is allocated so 1 or 2 can’t dominate to keep others from participating or official business from proceeding. Even news sites use moderation to keep such people from abusing their comment sections.
I can see if it was an official page for a particular office, blocking should not be allowed but then the account should be closed after the person leaves office or transferred to the new incumbent. If it’s a private page that was used and created before office, has family and personal postings, blocking should be possible. If the rule becomes that if you say anything about your political views, plans, etc. your page has to forever be open to all, even non-constituents from any city or any country, that could mean suppressing the site’s owners free speech rights as they won’t be able to share pollical views that every other citizen can do on their private page without risking harassment.
18 Likes
Good point, @rgcincy
It is important to remember that when dealing with MAGAs, you have to be aware of how MAGAs tend to use “liberal society” rules against the majority. I see your point that MAGAs may use techniques that are effectively DDOS attacks, highjacking the media to circumvent the appropriate use of that media platform. Thus amplifying their particular viewpoint and seeking to suppress the voices of others (as the school board member in the article tried to do through blocking of opposing voices.)
19 Likes
If you’re a public official conducting public business there, it’s not private space and citizens have first amendment rights there. I agree with @lastroth. This is not complicated. Keep your business accounts separate from your personal accounts. To do so protects you. To do otherwise invites confusion and trouble.
19 Likes
I would feel more confident in the eventual ruling if I thought the SC had any clue about social media.
This is a real issue. I wonder if a social media page of the type under discussion could devote a link to such comments, IOW a black hole that can be accessed by people who actually want to read it. It would also be a good place for “vaccines kill” and “Jews are taking over ___” and “the gay agenda,” etc. without crossing into the free speech issue. It would definitely be tricky to separate disinformation and bigotry from “comments I don’t agree with or that criticize me,” Do we anticipate the current SC can thread this needle?
12 Likes
Fascist school board member says you can’t xshit the Xshitter.
4 Likes
Nobody has a First Amendment right to post on anybody else’s account. Government can’t stop you posting on your own account. Joe Biden doesn’t have to let Nick Fuentes post shit in his comments. The State Department doesn’t have to let Russian trolls post shit in the comments.
18 Likes
Nope, the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to anything posted on social media, otherwise the various platforms couldn’t enforce rules of conduct and ban users. Even a relatively loosely moderated site like TPM here has guardrails where you’ll have a post removed if you step over the line.
4 Likes
And do we expect the current Supreme Court will be able to needle this thread?
9 Likes
Let’s compromise and call it ‘Xitter’. Rhymes with sh*tter.
11 Likes
Kavanaugh: Hold my beer.
3 Likes
Unless that account is used for public business and it’s owner has opened it to public comments. In that case, the owner has created a public forum, and can’t censor protected speech.
4 Likes