5 ms·

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 s

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. Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private property. FTA: The medium of communication, whether it’s online, television, radio, print, or bullhorn—isn’t the issue I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable users to block other users and it's really not the government's business. Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.

icebraining 9y ago
I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can do, but with what the government can ask (in this case, using its features like Blocking) Twitter to do.
- ams6110 9y ago
  I would support Twitter if they decided that governmental users were not allowed to block.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Twitter is perfectly free to do that, but is not compelled to do so (and still won't be even if EFF wins this lawsuit). Also notice that EFF winning this lawsuit will not compel all gov't users to disavow the block feature, because not all forms of gov't communications come with the same free speech obligations. The 1st amendment has different ramifications depending on the purpose of the forum; e.g., the rules for: * NOAA emergency announcements, * national park service informational billboards, and * city council Q&A sessions are all very different.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> it's not the public square Then it shouldn't be used as a public square. It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things. This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features. > Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different. There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities. So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features. This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
  - kencausey 9y ago
    What if the mall owner or manager felt he knew the official well and assumed that he would prefer the protesters be removed? If he had them removed without any communication with the official would that be a violation?
    - kthejoker2 9y ago
      It primarily depends on who is funding the politician's venture within the mall. If it's the taxpayers then that removal would constitute a First Amendment violation even without direction of the government itself. Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.
danso 9y ago
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different. That's a completely different situation than what the OP is talking about, which is public officials acting and communicating in their given public roles. It's illegal as hell to spend government resources on campaign purposes. That's why officials have separate websites for their public office and for their campaign: https://issa.house.gov/ https://issa.house.gov/ https://www.darrellissa.com/ https://www.darrellissa.com/
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

icebraining 9y ago

I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can do, but with what the government can ask (in this case, using its features like Blocking) Twitter to do.

ams6110 9y ago
I would support Twitter if they decided that governmental users were not allowed to block.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Twitter is perfectly free to do that, but is not compelled to do so (and still won't be even if EFF wins this lawsuit). Also notice that EFF winning this lawsuit will not compel all gov't users to disavow the block feature, because not all forms of gov't communications come with the same free speech obligations. The 1st amendment has different ramifications depending on the purpose of the forum; e.g., the rules for: * NOAA emergency announcements, * national park service informational billboards, and * city council Q&A sessions are all very different.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> it's not the public square Then it shouldn't be used as a public square. It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things. This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features. > Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different. There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities. So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.

rayiner 9y ago
> This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features. This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
- kencausey 9y ago
  What if the mall owner or manager felt he knew the official well and assumed that he would prefer the protesters be removed? If he had them removed without any communication with the official would that be a violation?
  - kthejoker2 9y ago
    It primarily depends on who is funding the politician's venture within the mall. If it's the taxpayers then that removal would constitute a First Amendment violation even without direction of the government itself. Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.

danso 9y ago

> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different. That's a completely different situation than what the OP is talking about, which is public officials acting and communicating in their given public roles. It's illegal as hell to spend government resources on campaign purposes. That's why officials have separate websites for their public office and for their campaign: https://issa.house.gov/ https://issa.house.gov/ https://www.darrellissa.com/ https://www.darrellissa.com/

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]