13 ms·

Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets

213 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

firstplacelast 9y ago
How is this different than real life?
LeoJiWoo 9y ago
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) ?
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  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...
- spsful 9y ago
  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?
- c22 9y ago
  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.
- mc32 9y ago
  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.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > 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.
- indubitable 9y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    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.
    - indubitable 9y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29 [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums
- lambda 9y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    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?
- gaius 9y ago
  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.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  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.
dennyabraham 9y ago
In the full title, the antecedent for "them" is "Tweets"
- DiabloD3 9y ago
  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.
  - sctb 9y ago
    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”.
    - krapp 9y ago
      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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ourmandave 9y ago
Does this mean I can't block anyone? A non-governmental actor can block anyone they want without violating the First Amendment. The First Amendment only restricts the government’s ability to limit speech in this context. There were 65.8M votes for Hillary. They're gonna need a lot of WH interns to set up that many blocks.
- lawl 9y ago
  > 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.
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
> 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.
pitaa 9y ago
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.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > 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.)
  - chc 9y ago
    I think you're confusing blocking and muting.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    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.
- belorn 9y ago
dilap 9y ago
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.)
mc32 9y ago
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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  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.
  - mc32 9y ago
    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?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      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.
      - mc32 9y ago
        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.
macspoofing 9y ago
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.
- BrandonM 9y ago
  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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  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.
twoodfin 9y ago
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?
- pitaa 9y ago
  > 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?
  - mcguire 9y ago
    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.
  - grigjd3 9y ago
    Does the small town use Twitter to announce major policy decisions and attack political opponents?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    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.
rayiner 9y ago
This is a really excellent analysis. The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. It’s whether government officials, by creating a Twitter account, have in effect created a public forum. Having done so, they can’t restrict speech on it. This isn’t a far out argument, though it might seem like one. Public forum doctrine is well established. 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.
- alfithehermutt 9y ago
  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.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > 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.
coding123 9y ago
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.
- Jeff_Brown 9y ago
  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.
  - coding123 9y ago
    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.
- Quenty 9y ago
  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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  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.
zerostar07 9y ago
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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  No, under the US Constitution (and probably most others) the government is restricted in ways that private citizens aren't.
- smichel17 9y ago
  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.
  - zerostar07 9y ago
    what's the point of forcing the president to accept a grievance if it's not possible for him to respond?
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      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.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - zerostar07 9y ago
        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
sverige 9y ago
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.
- cvsh 9y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    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.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  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.
nv-vn 9y ago
"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.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  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).
kelukelugames 9y ago
Another argument for Twitter becoming a public good! Maybe then I can finally sell my shares for a profit.
DoubleGlazing 9y ago
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?
- betterunix2 9y ago
  "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.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    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.
- ams6110 9y ago
  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.
H99189 9y ago
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?
- walshemj 9y ago
  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
- danso 9y ago
  > 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.

213 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

How is this different than real life?

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) ?

andy_ppp 9y ago
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...
spsful 9y ago
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?
c22 9y ago
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.
mc32 9y ago
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.
saas_co_de 9y ago
> 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.
indubitable 9y ago
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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  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.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28legal%29 [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums
lambda 9y ago
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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  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?
gaius 9y ago
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.
URSpider94 9y ago
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.

dennyabraham 9y ago

In the full title, the antecedent for "them" is "Tweets"

DiabloD3 9y ago
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.
- sctb 9y ago
  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”.
  - krapp 9y ago
    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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ourmandave 9y ago

Does this mean I can't block anyone? A non-governmental actor can block anyone they want without violating the First Amendment. The First Amendment only restricts the government’s ability to limit speech in this context. There were 65.8M votes for Hillary. They're gonna need a lot of WH interns to set up that many blocks.

lawl 9y ago
> 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.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

> 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.

pitaa 9y ago

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.

cryptoz 9y ago
> 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.)
- chc 9y ago
  I think you're confusing blocking and muting.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  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.
belorn 9y ago

dilap 9y ago

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.)

mc32 9y ago

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.

icebraining 9y ago
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.
- mc32 9y ago
  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?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    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.
    - mc32 9y ago
      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.

macspoofing 9y ago

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.

BrandonM 9y ago
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.
icebraining 9y ago
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.

twoodfin 9y ago

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?

pitaa 9y ago
> 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?
- mcguire 9y ago
  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.
- grigjd3 9y ago
  Does the small town use Twitter to announce major policy decisions and attack political opponents?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  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.

rayiner 9y ago

This is a really excellent analysis. The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. It’s whether government officials, by creating a Twitter account, have in effect created a public forum. Having done so, they can’t restrict speech on it. This isn’t a far out argument, though it might seem like one. Public forum doctrine is well established. 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.

alfithehermutt 9y ago
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.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > 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.

coding123 9y ago

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.

Jeff_Brown 9y ago
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.
- coding123 9y ago
  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.
Quenty 9y ago
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.
icebraining 9y ago
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.

zerostar07 9y ago

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.

icebraining 9y ago
No, under the US Constitution (and probably most others) the government is restricted in ways that private citizens aren't.
smichel17 9y ago
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.
- zerostar07 9y ago
  what's the point of forcing the president to accept a grievance if it's not possible for him to respond?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    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.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - zerostar07 9y ago
      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

sverige 9y ago

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.

cvsh 9y ago
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.
- icebraining 9y ago
  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.
nv-vn 9y ago
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.

nv-vn 9y ago

"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.

URSpider94 9y ago
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).

kelukelugames 9y ago

Another argument for Twitter becoming a public good! Maybe then I can finally sell my shares for a profit.

DoubleGlazing 9y ago

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?

betterunix2 9y ago
"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.
- leereeves 9y ago
  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.
ams6110 9y ago
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.

H99189 9y ago

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?

walshemj 9y ago
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
danso 9y ago
> 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.