Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
from the restrain-yourself-from-restraining-others dept
A federal judge has ruled public officials can't ban the public from interacting with official social media accounts, something that obviously has implications for the recently-filed suit by Twitter users blocked by the president's account.
Brian Davison filed a pro se lawsuit against Phyllis Randall, the Chair of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors, after she banned him from her Facebook page and deleted his critical comments. The decision wasn't an easy one for the court, as Venkat Balasubramani points out. The court had to take into account several determining factors before arriving at its First Amendment violation conclusion.
The court’s findings of fact regarding the defendant’s social media activities include:
- She had a campaign page (“Friends of Phyllis Randall”), and the day before she was sworn into office, defendant asked her constituents to visit her official page;
- She created the Facebook page outside the County’s channels, and her page will not revert to the county after she leaves office;
- She’s listed as a “government official” in the about section;
- She routinely uses the page for official proclamations and encourages constituents to contact her through the page (so official records are kept);
- She addresses her constituents through her posts and also submits posts “on behalf of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors”;
- She engages with constituents in the comments section.
The court also had to determine whether Randall was acting in her official capacity when moderating comments on the Facebook page. The court found Randall was acting under color of law, which suggested banning of commenters (on a page where she directly asked for comments on issues) violated Davison's First Amendment rights.
Not every moderation move is a First Amendment violation -- even on official government rep pages and even when done under color of law. But the reasons behind Randall's banning of Davison's participation moved it into unconstitutional territory.
Specifically, the court says it’s clear plaintiff was banned because defendant was offended, and (citing Tam) this is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Apparently, Defendant testified she banned Davison because she decided “decided at that moment that if [Plaintiff] were a type of person that would make comments about people’s family members, then maybe [Defendant] didn’t want [Plaintiff] to be commenting on [her] site.”
Randall said the violation shouldn't matter because it was brief: just a 12-hour ban. But the court reminds Randall that Constitutional violations are still violations, no matter how long they last. And the context of the banning harms the sort of speech the First Amendment is expressly designed to protect: criticism of government entities. From the decision [PDF]:
If the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence makes anything clear, it is that speech may not be disfavored by the government simply because it offends. Here, as discussed above, Defendant acted in her governmental capacity. Defendant’s offense at Plaintiff’s views was therefore an illegitimate basis for her actions – particularly given that Plaintiff earned Defendant’s ire by criticizing the County government. Indeed, the suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards.
This is the new reality for public officials. The internet is an amazing platform for two-way communication with constituents. But it's not something that can be treated as less "real" than press conferences or other real-world activities. Unconstitutional suppression of criticism is just as real when it's performed via Facebook moderation. Anyone assuming otherwise is likely going to find themselves in court.
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: block lists, first amendment, followers, free speech, politicians, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
--- snip ---
Local politician can't ban constituents from Facebook page - judge
[Judge] Cacheris ruled that the consequences of Randall's actions [a mere eight (or 12) hour block reversed next morning] were "fairly minor," however, he said that she committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment."
"The court holds only that under the specific circumstances presented here, [the] defendant violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and banning plaintiff from a digital forum for criticizing her colleagues in the county government," Cacheris wrote.
...
"We hope the courts look to this opinion as a road map in holding that it is unconstitutional for President Trump to block his critics on Twitter," Alex Abdo, senior staff attorney at the Institute, told the Wall Street Journal.
--- snip ---
https://www.rt.com/usa/397772-davison-facebook-cacheris-randall-free-speech-ruling/?utm_source=rs s&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS
Now, I KNOW you kids are screaming incoherently both "different for private site!" and "OMG, Russia Today!" (originally in WSJ, now out from paywall), but the clear American principle of FREE SPEECH applies even more to a BUSINESS! Techdirt is a FORUM that invites the public to comment; it CANNOT arbitrarily suppress persons and viewpoints.
Takes time, but "teh internets" will become "regulated" though actually FREER for decent persons (not you shouty little kids, to be entirely clear).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Your posts aren't deleted or sent away, they end up hidden because it adds nothing but your enormous butthurt that the community finds your contributions to shitty. If people are inclined to question the wisdom of the crowd a single click restores the post... and most people immediately hide it again.
Think of yourself as a street preacher on the corner, you're allowed to speak but we don't have to stop and listen to your ranting.
As I am want to do...
BYE FELECIA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Your TRIVIAL gainsaying is anticipated. See where I wrote: Now, I KNOW you kids are screaming incoherently both "different for private site!" and "OMG, Russia Today!"
Do you not see CLEARLY SAME PRINCIPLE? Yes, no, waffle, or just ad hom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
I see YOU chose ad hom since can't argue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A much saner person might have tried to get to the bottom of his complaint, or if they felt he was unhinged ignored him. The fact is rights were violated, even if only for a few hours (most likely before someone who understands the basics of the laws of the land pointed out you fucked up) they were violated.
While we have allowed "free speech zones" & tried to pass laws to make it a crime to make elected officials feel bad, hurting someones feelings isn't a crime. The job includes praise & unhappy comments.
Had this been her personal personal page, she would have every right to tell him to use the offical channels & if he persisted ban him. You made this page your semi-offical page & issues work related statements, I'm sorry if the digital town square you picked allowed people to call you out, but its the job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It cuts them off from what has been shown as a direct line to the leader of the country, one of the few places one can actually see what was said without his staff of spin doctors trying to claim his ban isn't a ban even as he tweets out calling it a ban in the middle of the presser.
It block people with differing views from expressing them to the leader in question... the leader of the "Free World" who has decided he don't need to listen to people who make him feel bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They are very confused about what their jobs are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Many of them get a taste of power and suddenly feel they are more special and deserve more, forgetting they aren't nobility all of a sudden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Private citizens are under no obligation to listen to your uninformed rambling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
But in any case, you don't want to see the principle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
>>> Private citizens are under no obligation to listen to your uninformed rambling.
That's not what I wrote. TECHDIRT IS A BUSINESS. It's not to choose among viewpoints.
And, except for the recursing fact that you shouty little kids always run off reasonable people, there would be people reading here who might interest in my notions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
many of those who opposed me HAVE left the site because got tangled in their own rage over little bits of text.
You clowns rail about censorship and can't now admit that I'm right on this principle. Only remaining question is whether Techdirt is handed over to Ayyadurai before equal access for all, without being "hidden" by the clique -- plus Techdirt administrator -- is applied here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Huh? Could you state that another way?
IT'S A PUBLIC FORUM! Once Techdirt made it public, IT gave up exclusive rights, NOT ME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
You remind me that I left out stupid and off-topic for choices, so thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Otherwise, it would allow twitter to create the false impression that everyone is against everything he tweets, lifting up negative comments while pushing down/disconnecting positive comments, and he would have no recourse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Businesses are (actually) quite free to tell you to buzz off, which Techdirt doesn't even do. They just put a little black bar over your offensive material. It's not even permanent! Anyone can click it to see your ass on display.
You live in a strange and most likely confusing world, when you can't comprehend that private businesses are not bound by constraints only intended for public officials and the offices they represent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Related and interesting:
"But in the United States, where freedom of speech enjoys protections found nowhere else in the world, Google and Facebook have not been forced to introduce censorship tools. They are not at the whim of paranoid despots or unthinking bureaucrats. Instead, Silicon Valley has volunteered to censor, and it has enlisted the help of politically partisan organizations to do so."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-27/silicon-valley-censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is completely off the top of my head, but I seem to remember that Twitter was only blocking purely abusive posting. If I'm not remembering wrong, then I see that blocking as much the same as kicking out hecklers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Related and interesting:
Seeing as how they aren't the government, you are free to use a competing service, one that doesn't censor the things you don't want them to censor. Why, you can even make your own! People might even appreciate your uncensored searches/content/opinions that you become bigger than the incumbents!
I, for one, dislike censorship of any kind, but appreciate the fact that, just as I have a right to choose which business I interact with, those businesses have a right to regulate their own content. After all, the First Amendment only applies to government bodies and government officials who are acting in that capacity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
As the topic principle shows, a site needs a good common-law reason to block someone from commenting. My comments have always been well within common law.
Yet this comment, by Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", now a paid writer for Techdirt, was NOT blocked -- in fact, when I raised objection, was laughed off by "the Techdirt community":
"There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brai ns-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
So much for your "standard".
In any case, NO community has a right to arbitrarily block or even hide comments. You need a good reason.
From WAY back, when there used to be reasonable people here:
For that a business simply isn't a "person" with First Amendment rights:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03082411131/couple-kicked-out-of-hotel-after-manag er-accuses-them-of-writing-a-bad-review.shtml#c537
"I think you guys are confused over the First Amendment. While it's true that business owners have the right to refuse service to someone, they need a legit reason to do so. They just cannot refuse to do business with someone because they don't like the way they look, act."
A perhaps unique instance of support for simple fairness:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/13030222669/what-we-should-learn-comic-creators- censoring-themselves-apple.shtml#c295
"Do people just automatically report out_of_the_blue's posts?? This comment is perfectly fine and worth restating. Apple is like Disneyland, and childish fantasy world, complete with all the problems and injustices of that sort of controlled environment. Why did people flag this comment?" -- (Not a single answer, let alone more support.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Related and interesting:
After the cases that have come before, its just easier to cave than to waste money defending cases that shouldn't have been brought. Look at all of the patent trolls who get others to settle because the litigation will destroy them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
Literally false, again.
"You need a good reason."
There is a good reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Filing a lawsuit saying your constitutional rights are being violated on a website is ridiculous. I hate to say it but constitutional rights on a website that is privately owned simply do not exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Related and interesting:
No, you're simply wrong. Businesses are PERMITTED by the public to SERVE our interests. I grant you that's now being diluted in practice, but this judge has the American principle right.
Else, people having dark skins could be refused service in lunch counters, or kept from entering public schools. Eisenhower properly sent in the National Guard to ensure that a black child was allowed into school. That's America, you clearly don't know the country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Related and interesting:
>>> After the cases that have come before, its just easier to cave than to waste money defending cases that shouldn't have been brought. Look at all of the patent trolls who get others to settle because the litigation will destroy them.
I'm pretty sure that you either didn't read or don't understand, or are drunk.
The Zerohedge item is about Silicon valley censoring on own inititative.
I guess you're okay with Google and Facebook controlling speech, so long as you can get in an irrelevant dig on "patent trolls". SHEESH. You're going for the tactic of just putting up whatever pops in to show that my comments are opposed. That'd only work if made some tiny degree of sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
Instead of posting as "Anonymous Coward", perhaps you should adopt the name "Legit Reason."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Related and interesting:
Government is not allowed to create a law ....
Unlike the government, business is allowed to discriminate within limits - no shirt, no service, etc. The limits are defined in law and include things like race, religion, sex, etc.
Who knows what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Related and interesting:
Are you referring to their little experiments upon the unsuspecting public? Those were borderline douchebag territory, but I do not know the legal standing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You are conflating the rights of a website administrator with the rights of the user of a website. Had Facebook banned this user (say, due to violating their Terms by using certain language) there would have been no Constitutional violation.
However, since a user of the website, specifically a public official, blocked the user (on a page used for official business, etc.), said public official violated the 1st Amendment rights of the blocked user. The rights of the website administrator (Facebook, in this case) didn't come into play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Pretty sure there was a thread once where everybody who flagged him told him they had flagged him, so he could count. (Well, so we could count. I'm not convinced that he can.)
For the record, I am no longer flagging him; I'm now blocking all his posts preemptively, sight unseen. It's sure saved me a lot of clicks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
This isn't a public forum. Here is a link for you to research that. Public/Nonpublic Forums Distinction Techdirt isn't public property and the staff are not government employees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It bears adding that the judge also specifically acknowledged that deleting off-topic posts (eg spam or brigading) would still be permissible.
Ars:
So, y'know, that's one more reason that the dipshit who keeps ranting about his comments being "censored" is wrong. Add it to the pile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
You are a supreme douche!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
You actually think you are a reasonable person? Oh, that's right, you're still here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets turn this around
Randall said the violation shouldn't matter because it was brief: just a 12-hour ban.
So, If I told Randall "Just the tip, and only for a minute", would it still be rape if she says no? I mean, it's just for a minute...
Violations, even if only for a short time, are violations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
I see YOU chose ad hom since can't argue."
There is absolutely nothing coherent in your verbal diarrhea to "argue."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
Yes, it's that Techdirt can't stand dissent, just shows the site is piratey intolerant kids.
Now, YOU STATE IT. Come on, don't just claim there is, STATE IT. And show examples.
And then try to get an official response from Techdirt, because you're just an AC! Perhaps administrator astro-turfing, though. -- I've shown two zombies who popped up after a six year five month gap, so I can nearly PROVE that not all comments here are actual persons.
-- AND THAT SESSION WAS BLOCKED AFTER SEVERAL COMMENTS. That's clearly administrator action.
But I know to save the text! Will get in sometime, making on-topic evidence against Techdirt!
Here's more: I state as fact that my home IP address has been blocked. I must use TOR to get in at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
You remind me that I left out stupid and off-topic for choices, so thanks."
Oh, like you arguing that an opinion blog is akin to an official government representative in how they are required to adhere to the 1st ammendment. You slimy, thread derailing, egotistical piece of purposeful obsfucation...You cum yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
Statute? Ah, I don't need no stinking statute!
Do you know what the US Constitution is? It's the founding document, and WAY above statute. Just read the piece above and the links I gave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I've said all along that the standard is common-law -- and believe I'm on-topic here -- but which means that those who call persons "dipshit" would be moderated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, I'm not. But Techdirt does not have any right to censor or hide viewpoints.
By the way, with 23 comments over 4 years, you look like a near zombie, resurrected to add cred. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
??? Gosh, I have been SO wrong for years! I guess no place like malls, bars, sport stadums, is technically a PUBLIC place by your weenie-ing legalism, nonetheless, there's a FORMS CONTRACT in evidence that makes commenting "public" in some degree...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
By the way, a power to remove or block comments is not a right to do so, any more than a lunch counter or other biz can arbitrarily deny you service. It's just not practical for me to enforce my right. But that appears to be coming down the pike, kids!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It cuts them off from what has been shown as a direct line
You can mail the guy a letter, but he doesn't have to open it - he has the right to toss it in the trash when he sees who it's from.
I don't see a Twitter block as any different.
A Facebook ban, which prevents other people (who might want to see the post) from seeing things, is different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
So, remind me. Which government agency runs the Techdirt blog, and what official government positions does its staff occupy?
Hmm, I can't think of any. Techdirt seems to be privately owned and operated.
Since the Constitution only protects you from actions by government officials or discrimination against you for a specific (and short) list of reasons -- and Techdirt doesn't violate any of them when other commenters down-vote your posts -- it would seem you have no valid point whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Ah, found it.
Looks like it's five.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
a power to remove or block comments is not a right to do so
You seem to be confused. TechDirt isn't the government. The 1st amendment protects the people against government action.
What TechDirt is is private property. They have as much right to show you the exit as I would if you came into my living room and left a "deposit".
The solution to your comments being removed is to stop making comments that do not have a defensible point to make in an insulting way. Once you do that, even if folks disagree with your point of view, you'll stop having your comments removed.
It really is a very simple thing to understand. Even my 5 year old great niece seems to grasp the concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
I searched through the Constitution and amendments and couldn't find anything about public forums. So far as I'm aware, the idea of public forums as the apply to the Constitution arise from case law. Could you cite any case law which says that Techdirt is legally counts as a forum?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
To be more precise: I see nothing in the constitution that would make "public space" apply to something like Techdirt. Case law might have something that makes it apply, but you have yet to present evidence of any such case law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yet this does happen. Even in congress, cheering observers are significantly less likely to be thrown out than those shouting vulgarities. That's not a bad thing, but it's a known and accepted part of the first amendment.
I wonder if the defendant would have had better luck by phrasing her ban as an action to ensure the space is available to all audiences. That by temporarily curtailing his speech she was allowing others to speak that would otherwise be intimidated.
In general, the answer to these things is clear community guidelines, and have the moderators follow them. While allowing some flexibility is important,* it's also important for moderators to be as impartial and consistent as possible. Regardless of the topic and speaker.
* Zero tolerance policies end badly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And your hilariously nonsense "zombie" conspiracy would embarrass you if you had any self-awareness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
For example, a store is perfectly within its rights to kick you out because you're a rambling spammer who doesn't stop yelling about how they brought in a shopper who hasn't been in the store since last year just for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
It's similar scenario to people who lie about established facts, or who can say the most amazingly vile things while maintaining a "civil tone", but they get all bent out of shape and feel you lose an argument because you said "fuck".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why I'm right! You'll just user your power to stifle any opinion to contrary!
a) Mike's e-roof, his rules
b) no right to be heard
c) it's not Mike or any of the team who "censor" his posts; readers like myself click the red report button so we can read the genuinely interesting posts rather than the whiny piggyback posts we're not interested in
d) piggybacking by posting comments just to get attention for one's views is bad form and loses you credibility; if you have a strongly held opinion that many people disagree with start your own blog. I did.
e) comments don't get hidden when they're interesting to the community. This individual posts comments that he alone is interested in. We're not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
Techdirt's being exceedingly gracious by not censoring non-spambot trolls like Scoot Hamilton, even though they're well within their rights to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has LONG been violating this principle! First FOUR attempts to get in at 9:38 Pacific Time...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Is that automatic by some number of clicks? How many? -- Or does an administrator okay it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It cuts them off from what has been shown as a direct line
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, and they're like, it's better than yours, damn right, it's better than yours
I'd say that his central delusion is that he refuses to accept that people just don't like him.
It's always gotta be some grand conspiracy by the Techdirt moderators, like they sit at their keyboards all day simultaneously monitoring every comments thread to see when he posts so that they can thwart him. He considers this to be more plausible than the notion that other commenters think he's an ass and flag his posts. No matter how many people tell him, directly that they think he's an ass and they're flagging his posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My, the response is a great exhibition of why my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, and they're like, it's better than yours, damn right, it's better than yours
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major Tom?
I'd also be happy with a common law can be citation. I just want some specifics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censored, I mean "hidden" by "the [Techdirt] community" is yet another lie! -- Tell my wife I love her very much -- she knows -- Ground Control to Major Tom, Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong -- Can you hear me, Major To
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This will have a downside.
Don't give me "it's different for government officials" crap line, you ALL know that it's true.
Makes me wonder about Blockbots now, are they illegal as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This will have a downside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]