President can’t block Twitter followers – Is the time right for registrants to take on Facebook?
Yesterday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the President cannot block individuals from his Twitter feed. In a case brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and seven individual plaintiffs, Donald Trump’s ability to block certain individuals from accessing his otherwise public posts was ruled unconstitutional.
The opinion, which can be read here: Trump-Twitter-ca2-20190709 ruled that the presidents “tweets” are considered government speech and that his efforts to block certain critics from following him on Twitter is discriminatory and violates the First Amendment.
Facebook’s policy block any person required to register as a sex offender from accessing their platform. Most politicians have social media account and the most widely used is Facebook. Many political and news outlets require a Facebook account to post a comment to a story. In fact, courts have recognized that social media is the new town square. Traditionally a public forum was a place such as a park,street, or sidewalk where citizens have assembled, discussed public questions, and facilitated communication.Within these areas, the Supreme Court has held, government can prohibit activity only when necessary to serve a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored (see: Perry Education Assoc. v. Perry Local Educators, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983))
So if social media is the new forum for politicians and news outlets to speak to the public and facilitate communication, how is it that Facebook can ban a segment of the population from accessing its public forum?
Although the 2nd Circuit case expressly states, “We do not consider or decide whether an elected official violates the Constitution by excluding persons from a wholly private social media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms“, is it time for those who are banned to take on the companies that ban them?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a difference here between this suit and a potential suit against Facebook.
In this case, it was Trump, a government agent, blocking people. Facebook is a private entity. A suit against Facebook would have a different vibe, more along the lines of the gay wedding cake case because it would be about how far a person can be allowed to deny a service based upon specific beliefs.
Facebook only made the registrant ban for plausible deniability reasons and the rules can be merely circumvented by making an alias and not posting pics.
I do speculate that the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes law that Obama signed when it was attached to the NDAA could be useful in a Facebook lawsuit, because if you target a person based upon your belief has a certain disability like a mental illness, then it is a hate crime. That means a person who targets a registered person because he believes that person to be a pedophile, which is classified as a mental disease, then that person committed a hate crime. Louisiana charged a vigilante with a hate crime for using registry info.
But that is merely my hypothesis.
Derek
I heard on the news today about a recent study that reversed their opinions on the benefits of public media., especially for those with mental or emotional problems, Now saying social media is beneficial and helps them react with others benefiting them and helping them cope with there problems. I didn’t catch where the study was from. Could that information be of any benefit in action against facebooks bigoted stand.
Yes, it’s time for challenging lots of things in the courts concerning all the rights SOs have to leave on the table of life just to exist. Most of us don’t even have a life if still on supervised release after five years because one doesn’t choose to accept the de-rigeur of false “Treatment”. I have found it to be just another racket to fleece a captive clientele of what little cash they have as they exit prison.
We are tens of millions strong if our families are included in the mix of who is affected by the barbaric and draconian laws we live under. NARSOL should set up a legal fund which we could all contribute to hire rock star lawyers to fight our legal battles on class action scales. The Weinstein, Cosby, and especially all this Epstein business nothwithstanding, this legal fund is doable if everybody would contribute just a few dollars each for every family member and registrant involved. We could have a legal fund with tens of millions of dollars to fight with.
I am ready to help financially if ever such a national fund is started. I think these medieval ordinances would fall like dominos. There is great power in numbers. Nowhere in the constitution did out forefathers grant permission for what is happening in our country today.
I know that there are some that are atheists or have doubts about God’s existence along with His Son, Jesus Christ, but He has revealed many times over for me His unlimited love, grace, and power. Without Him we can do nothing, but with Him we can do anything. Therefore, I am praying fervently for the registry, along with all of its draconian ordinances, to be blown apart.
Thanks Sarah – you can donate to our general legal fund.
The Leaning toward the Book agenda has the Registered Citizens, Banshished from all of the above .
The leaning toward the Book Agenda, Registered Citizens are to be Banshished, from all of the above.
Face Book is the toilet bowl of the internet. If you think of how many people have been hurt by slander, cheating, lies and unchecked rumors it’s just sad. I know its not the point of this post. But I wouldn’t use that Shit show if I was paid to. I’ll keep my peace and sanity and they can keep Face Book and all its hate speech and worthless trash. Its basically the Jerry Springer of Social Media.
Twitter is just as bad. I find that my recent exile from Twitter has been a blessing in disguise. Even a number of fellow registrants act like self-righteous jerks online and I recently removed a number of activists from my networks because of their recent behavior.
Someone should have already challenged Facebook under California law. They are a California company and last tim that I checked, their TOS required their customers to submit to California law for dispute resolution.
Can we get an attorney that would do it on commission and sue for enough to make it worthwhile.
if you mean “contingency” – that’s a tough one. In a case like this you sue for declaratory and injunctive relief (they can’t ban people), not for money damages.
Maybe if Janice ever gets a break in CA she could do it and most likely it would be a sure win