Tennessee Town Passes Policy Banning Negative Comments About The Town's Government

from the the-Supreme-Court-has-roundly-rejected-prior-restraint dept

Thu, Dec 18th 2014 3:59am — Tim Cushing

The commissioners of a small Tennessee town have just voted to ban negative comments about it from social media. This stupid move was prompted by "criticism and lies" being posted online, which supposedly "hampered" the town's government from performing its duties.

South Pittsburg City is a town of 3,000. This fact will limit the damage done by its city commissioners' new policy (which passed with 4-1 vote), but only because the town itself is tiny. The ban, however, is super-broad. (via Ben Swann and BRACE YOURSELF for always-awesome AUTOPLAY)

It applies to all city elected representatives, appointed board members, employees, volunteers, vendors, contractors and anyone associated with the town in an official capacity who uses social networks. The policy says those persons can't post anything negative about the city, its employees or other associates.

Examples include posted videos, blogs, online forum discussions, Facebook and Twitter, Commissioner Jeff Powers said.

Now, it's obvious that this ban violates the First Amendment rights of everyone involved. It's obvious to the lone dissenting voter, Paul Don King. It's not so obvious to the rest of the commissioners, who have offered a variety of terrible defenses the new policy.

Commissioner Jeff Powers:

"It seems like every few meetings we're having to address something that's been on Facebook and created negative publicity," he said. "This is just an industry standard nowadays."

Oh, lord. Have you ever heard of such a slight inconvenience? "Every few meetings." Sounds exhausting. If he thinks it's a drag dealing with negative comments periodically, just wait until he has to actively police social media for violators.

One, you're a government, not an "industry." So, that makes this move censorship rather than some sort of half-assed town TOS. It's called prior restraint and it's something the Supreme Court has recognized as a violation of First Amendment rights. You can't just tell any group of people they can't criticize the town or its employees/"other associates." That's not an "industry standard." It's not even a "government standard." Criticism is to be expected, not shut down.

Powers follows that up by attempting to clarify the situation, but only makes it more incomprehensible.

Powers said the policy doesn't forbid the use of social media, and it can be amended in the future.

"The first thing everyone wants to say is 'I can't post anything on Facebook,'" he said. "Well, you can. Just not [anything] that sheds a negative light on any person, entity, board or things of that nature. You can go ahead and post all you want."

Oh, OK. You're not banning anyone employed by or doing business with the city from using social media. You're just forbidding them from criticizing anyone employed by or doing business with the city. You can "post all you want" EXCEPT.

And "fixing it in post" with amendments isn't a great way to run a town's government. The idea is to produce good policies and statutes, not bad statutes that need to be amended (or rolled back) before they can mesh with the Constitution.

City Attorney Billy Gouger said the new policy is not intended to infringe on anyone's right to free speech.

"What this policy tries to do is reconcile that right with other rights," he said. "It does, to some extent, limit your ability to criticize or comment in an official capacity."

I am completely lost as to how Gouger has managed to reconcile the policy he passed with the words he's saying in defense of it. It is definitely "intended to curtail free speech." Free speech is the opposite of this policy's wording. How is "limiting your ability to criticize or comment" not a limit of free speech? Because it's in an "official capacity?" Even if that limitation manages to pass Constitutional muster (and good luck!), the limitation is effectively meaningless because the range of people this policy covers is so broad. "Volunteers, vendors and contractors" are still private citizens even if they're doing business with the town.

If you want to write individual agreements with each of these listed parties stating that doing business with (or being employed by) South Pittsburg City means not criticizing South Pittsburg City, then by all means do so. These parties can waive their rights, but it's still their choice. You can't just take it away. That (again) is prior restraint -- something that is exactly a "limit on free speech."

Finally, some words of "wisdom" from the mayor herself.

"Criticism is one thing," Mayor Jane Dawkins said. "Out-and-out lies and untruths -- that's another thing. Those kinds of things are the things that will be directed."

Hey, there's a civil process for dealing with lies and untruths. Try using that instead. Libel and defamation are not protected speech and any of the four easily-bruised members of the city commission should avail themselves of that remedy. Shutting people up with a stupid, unconstitutional policy isn't the answer, no matter how small your town is. That the number of people whose free speech rights have just been constrained will likely be low is no excuse. It's still what it is: censorship in the form of prior restraint.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, jeff powers, negative comments, policy, social media, south pittsburg city, tennessee

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Violynne (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:21am

Cue the banjos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: cue the banjos
  I was thinking the same thing
  only add "you got a pretty mouth Gouger"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 4:10am

I await to see how many 0's will be on the settlement checks when they get sued, lose hard, appeal, get smacked harder, appeal again and eventually turn the whole town against them.

Perhaps if they communicated in an open fashion with the citizens they could deal with these issues out in the open and dispel all of the gossip and such.

He thinks he has a right to not be offended because he is in office... that should be a clue he shouldn't be in office. If someone working for the city tweeting I think he's an asshole requires a "law" perhaps the sad truth is... he is an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:08am
  
  Re:
  Is it time to openly hate on the town's leaders to line up position in the lawsuit to claim some of those 0's on the settlement check?
  
  The Commissioner is a fool if he believes this can go anyway but badly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is it time to openly hate on the town's leaders to line up position in the lawsuit to claim some of those 0's on the settlement check?
    
    Have you not learnt that politics is a a game played with the money provided by those that the politicians claim to represent. A lawsuit against the politicians will have both sides legal bills, and any awards funded by the town's people, without denting the bank accounts of the politicians.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    There are only 3,000 taxpayers to take money from. It's probably not worth it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John85851 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:31am
  
  Re:
  The problem with a lawsuit is that it takes time to work its way through the court system.
  And while it's going through the system and until it's struck down (which it eventually will be), there were will be all kinds of costs involved.
  And guess what? These councilmen don't have to pay for the lawsuits, so what do they care how much it costs the taxpayers? After all, it's not like it's coming out of their own pockets.
  
  It would be refreshing if lawmakers had to pay for bad laws *and laws that they know are bad* out of their salary. Why should they care if their law will be struck down in 3 or 5 years? They're still making their salary.
  
  All those 0's that you talk about? That will come from increased property taxes because the city will have to pay off the people who sue them. Yay- higher taxes to fight an unconstitutional law that never should have been passed in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 4:14am

South Pittsburg is a dump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RR, 18 Dec 2014 @ 4:36am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 18th, 2014 @ 4:14am
  Run by chumps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:20am
    
    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 18th, 2014 @ 4:14am
    Chump: A foolish or easily deceived person. Hopefully this town has 3 quick resignations and a repeal of that stupid "law" before it bankrupts the whole county and or state with its legal quagmire.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon E. Mous (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 4:46am

Yeah sure let's toss that free speech part out the window.

I guess your only rights in a town like this is to pay taxes but don't ask anyone what becomes of those who spend the money.

I am sure Dear Leader in North Korea would be smiling that communist values are alive and well in some places in America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 4:50am

I hear this policy is also pretty popular with a certain country that has allegedly killed several of its own citizens a long time ago and has been covering up said assault for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 4:52am

and i suppose there will be no change to this until someone has done the exact thing this new 'law' is supposed to stop and it then all goes to court, raising the issue into the nations spotlights and the council members either singularly or collectively get a massive legal bill!! if making total plums of themselves is what the members are after, go ahead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:23am

I look forward to people creating imposter Twitter accounts for the town officials. Then suing the town after swatting the homes of the account owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:33am

It's sad that a man named "Don King" is the voice of reason and sanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:44am

Bo? Luke? Is that you?!
I had no idea that y'all were running the town these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:44am

Time to create a Twitter campaign to bash the town. If they think that discussing something negative every few meetings is bad, just wait until their Twitter feed is swamped with insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:49am

Civilization has to be learned.
Collective memory only works when the new generation is taught the hard-won lessons of history. I think someone forgot to include these 4.

What this reminds me is that civilization is hard. It doesn't happen on its own. Idiocy can creep in anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:57am

Reverse Psychology?
Can they ban sarcasm, too? Let's all just agree among ourselves that whatever we say about S. Pittsburg means the opposite. Then we can praise them all day!

S. Pittsburg is the most well-run, fiscally sound municipality in the tri-state area!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: Reverse Psychology?
  Sarcasm is just as protected as criticism -- so they can ban one to the same degree that they can ban the other. Which is not at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: Reverse Psychology?
    Irony noted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frok (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 12:26am
  
  Re: Reverse Psychology?
  Yes, reverse the injuries of psychology and return to expecting true manly behavior.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andreas (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:58am

Great, now the whole internet has to criticize South Pittsburg City because some people are not allowed anymore.

Not sure if they've just outsourced hating by utilizing Streisand effect...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:21am

I so wish I could be in on that class-action lawsuit. Sitting pretty in retirement a year from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:27am

It applies to all city elected representatives, appointed board members, employees, volunteers, vendors, contractors and anyone associated with the town in an official capacity who uses social networks. The policy says those persons can't post anything negative about the city, its employees or other associates.

I'm unable to see how they intend to run campaigns for re-election under this policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  Simple: Like any other law, it doesn't apply to the nobility/politicians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JoeCool (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Even simpler - they'll campaign on the fact that nobody said anything negative about them, so they're obviously the best for the job. :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Starke (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ...and arrest anyone who runs against them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Frok (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 12:25am
        
        black racists sporting batons at voting
        No, simple intimidate ought be sufficient.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:50am

"What this policy tries to do is reconcile that right with other rights," he said. "It does, to some extent, limit your ability to criticize or comment in an official capacity."

The policy encourages those people to separate themselves privately from their position with the city, Gouger said.

OK, seriously, I need to see the exact wording of this policy. They have every right to ban negative comments *in an official capacity*. Like if someone had an official city Twitter account or city Facebook account, the city would have the right to control what was posted by those accounts.

Without reading the policy, I can't tell if it's actually in violation of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:15am

Glad I don't live there
My wife would be upset due to police coming to take me away after one day of complaining about their stupid policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: Glad I don't live there
  Nah, you'd just be fired. Even the city attorney is smart enough to know that you can't actually arrest someone over a criticism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re: Glad I don't live there
    If they had a smart city attorney, they would not have this policy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buster, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:18am

Can't say anything negative
That's when you leave a comment that says "Town policy does not allow me to say anything negative even if it is the truth. Positive comments are below

...[end of comment]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scotts13 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:29am

It WILL stand until they're sued
The little Pennsylvania town I used to live in gathered some of it's income from an "occupational category" tax - you paid a fixed fee depending on what your job title was. Doctors so much, street sweepers less, "housewives" a pittance. It's been struck down as unrepresentative and illegal everywhere it's been challenged, and the town agrees it should be eliminated. BUT, they see no reason to do so until a citizen specifically (pays to) challenge it. It's been decades...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:19am

The policy says those persons can't post anything negative about the city

How screwed are they if they have a budget deficit and can't post negative numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
limbodog (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:55am

Elected officials
The law says that there can be no religious tests for public office, but how about some general legal knowledge tests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goose, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:06am

Butt Hurt Much? Why Not Zoidburg !!
Apply this three times a day....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eLf1OL1zsZU/UDJawYjUnYI/AAAAAAAAEps/tNIHbG4zXLw/s1600/Dr-Zoidbergs- butthurt-cream.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:08am

Pittsburg is such a wonderful town it takes away the free speech of its employee's, so there are no worries about meaningful discussions ..we keep it simple here , so when we take our citizens money no one will know how we mismanage it see how easy that is now we can eliminate the stress , next year we will rename our town Stepford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can'tComment, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:30am

widespread
The Vermont League of Cities and Towns helps Vermont town with language for "social media police" that prevent town employees from using sites such as iBrattleboro.com, a long running citizen news site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Can'tComment, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: widespread
  That should be "policy," not police…
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kenpachi (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:56am

Can you spell hypocrisy?
These are two of the official "Values" they claim to defend.

* To ensure professional and ethical conduct by City employees.
* Be a citizen-oriented government which operates as an efficient, friendly business entity.

How do you like dem apples?

http://southpittsburgtn.org/

They really should change the site's address to OfficialCensorship.gov :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: Can you spell hypocrisy?
  So the city is run by Communists!!! Well I see that happening all over in time. So many Democrats believe in that these days. If your a Republican that tried to go to a Collage as a speaker, you're get Protested right out of there. They don't want you speaking at all. You're free to speak so long as you agree with them. That's the attitude more and more these days, so I'm not really surprised a City Did this. I'm sure all that voted for this crap were Democrats. I don't even have to look. The Court better throw this crap out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Brand, 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:20am

Interesting thought process
"Criticism is one thing," Mayor Jane Dawkins said. "Out-and-out lies and untruths -- that's another thing.

But we decided to lump them together when drafting this law ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Interesting thought process
  Of course, because they're worried about the criticism, not the lies. As the article notes, if it were lies that concerned them then they would avail themselves of the laws already on the books to handle them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
S. T. Stone (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:07am

Anything that can be destroyed by the truth deserves to be destroyed by the truth.

Lemme tell you something, these assholes need some truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Wing, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:48pm

"Everyone loves us since we stopped allowing criticism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:09pm

that saying only criminals need fear an out of control government and police, the people that say that never seem to realize that eventually everyone is labeled a criminal. Unless they are 100% sycophants to the tyrants in charge. Even then its an 80% chance you get rewarded with a bullet to your head when you stop being useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frok (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 12:24am

Unsavory Agents posters... mmmm
Derision of folly is efficacious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2014 @ 6:59am

Want to bet the City officials are all Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIP_Constitution, 13 Mar 2015 @ 8:43pm

It's funny how town officials there probably have sex with underage members of their own family, yet ban something as simple as free speech.

'America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]