4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
It depends on what other limits they place on the use of the town facebook page. If they consistently apply the rule that only content related to the monthly potluck is allowed, then they would be allowed to block PETA (this is similar to the example the article gives of a public library that hosts a discussion board exclusively for book recommendations). They wouldn't be able to block someone who complained that the food would at the last potluck was bad, because that would be blocking them based on viewpoint rather than based on topic.

by pitaa 9y ago

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.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

It depends on what other limits they place on the use of the town facebook page. If they consistently apply the rule that only content related to the monthly potluck is allowed, then they would be allowed to block PETA (this is similar to the example the article gives of a public library that hosts a discussion board exclusively for book recommendations). They wouldn't be able to block someone who complained that the food would at the last potluck was bad, because that would be blocking them based on viewpoint rather than based on topic.