Court Denies Politician's Attempt To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Banning Critics From His Facebook Page

from the really-not-how-the-First-Amendment-works dept

Late last year, Maine governor Paul LePage was sued by the ACLU and two of the state's residents. It wasn't over his vocalized desire to shoot a local political cartoonist or his tone deaf handling of the Net Neutrality debate. This lawsuit deals with LePage's moderation of his official Facebook page. LePage (or more likely, his staff) swing the banhammer pretty freely, blocking users and deleting critical comments.

If LePage is using this Facebook page as an official extension of the governor's office, he can't engage in this kind of moderation without doing damage to the First Amendment. LePage has tried to claim the page isn't official, but it's been used to deliver official statements from his office. In addition, the page states it's Lepage's "official" page, and the page itself has been "verified" as official by Facebook, which requires the input of LePage and his office to make his official page official.

So, when LePage argues it's just some sort of unofficial campaign page with no ties to his current position in the government -- as he did in his motion to dismiss -- it's a Hail Mary play. The court isn't going to buy these assertions, not when there's plenty of evidence pointing to the Facebook page's officialness. For an official mouthpiece of a government entity, blocks and bans of critics aren't just a PR black eye, it's likely a First Amendment violation as well.

In addition, as the court points out in its ruling [PDF], claiming all content posted by third parties as comments will somehow be construed by page visitors as government speech is just as ridiculous as claiming the page isn't official. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

Based solely on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court must disagree with the premise that all of the information on the Governor’s Facebook page constitutes his speech. The posts on the Facebook page are labeled with the name of the person who posted them, and the Governor’s speech—his posts—is distinct from the private citizen posts.

[T]he Court is similarly unpersuaded that the Governor incorporates or adopts the comments and posts of others as his own speech simply by not deleting them after the speakers post them to his page. Such posts are readily distinguishable from a city’s acceptance of a donated monument for display in a public park or a town’s inclusion of private-company hyperlinks on the official town website—both of which have been held to be government speech. Pleasant Grove City, 555 U.S. at 468; Sutliffe, 584 F.3d at 330. Citizens posting to the “Paul LePage, Maine’s Governor” page control the content and timing of their post without any prior review from the Governor. The page acts a passive conduit for the posts.

The ruling goes on to point out that having dissenting views on his page in no way prevents Governor LePage from getting his message out. Even without moderation, page visitors cannot "drown out" official posts or otherwise engage in a heckler's veto, thus affecting the governor's First Amendment rights. Visitors do not control the page and aren't able to post anything other than comments or questions. LePage's free speech is as free as ever, even if he can't control what others say when commenting on his posts.

The court is also unimpressed with LePage's argument that banning dissenting commenters or deleting critical comments is somehow protected speech. As the court sees it, considering the facts it has on hand, the only speech getting squelched is that of page visitors -- and apparently only those who have nothing nice to say about the governor or his messages.

The Governor does not dispute the Plaintiffs’ claims that his deletion of their posts and banning of them from his page constituted viewpoint discrimination. Given this and the Court’s conclusion that forum analysis does apply, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs plausibly stated a claim for violation of their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The governor isn't going to come out of this case looking any better, even if he might secure tiny wins on small procedural points. Rather than simply cease deleting critical comments and banning critics, the governor has chosen to fight for his "right" to oppress dissent via an apparently official government page. That's really all you need to know about LePage's respect for the First Amendment. It's kind of sickening a government figure would try to argue banning critical speech is protected under the same First Amendment rights he would deny to those engaging with his page.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, banning, followers, maine, moderation, paul lepage

Maine Governor Tells 16-Year-Old Worried About Net Neutrality Repeal To 'Pick Up A Book And Read'

from the you're-not-helping dept

As more than a few folks have noted, many opponents of net neutrality (from FCC boss Ajit Pai to Mark Cuban) are following blind ideology. Many of them quite honestly believe that no regulation can ever be good, and that government is absolutely never capable of doing the right thing. That kind of simplicity may feel good as you navigate a complicated world, but it's intellectually lazy. As a result, the decision to use net neutrality rules as an imperfect but necessary stopgap (until we can reduce corruption and drive more competition into the sector) simply befuddles them.

Of course this kind of blind ideology is particularly handy when you don't actually know how modern broadband markets or net neutrality even work, but your gut just tells you why the whole nefarious affair is simply bad. That's why you'll see folks like Ted Cruz consistently doubling down on bizarre, misleading claims based on repeatedly debunked falsehoods. Needless to say, this sort of lazy thinking is not particularly productive. Especially when you're a member of the same government purportedly tasked with analyzing real-world data, listening to constituent concerns, and actively tasked with making things better.

Case in point: one sixteen-year-old Maine high school student recently wrote to Maine Governor Paul LePage, clearly worried about the impact the broadband industry's attack on net neutrality will have on her ability to freely access information online. Camden Hills Regional High School sophomore Hope Osgood actually took the time to write her governor, expressing concern about how the repeal could pose problems for free speech, competition, and the health of information exchange:

"The internet is the easiest way to access anything. News, information, etc. Companies being able to put restrictions on internet usage isn’t ideal! People will be left in the dark about some things. All my school work is internet-based, but what happens if I can’t reach what I need to? What about my lessons in school?"

Osgood said she is concerned that big companies "might have more control over everything. If you wanted to go to a certain website, it might be slowed down. You might have to pay to access that, or it might be completely blocked off what you can see. They could filter news, media, or things they don’t agree with. I don’t think that should be able to happen. Everybody should be able to get information."

Le Page's response to her concerns? To scribble a response in the margins of her letter telling the kid to "pick up a book and read!":

His response not only is insulting, but makes no coherent sense. How would reading a book solve letting telecom monopolies run roughshod over competitors and the health of the internet? It wouldn't. Like so many others, LePage's disdain for net neutrality is being fueled entirely by blind ideology, and much like Donald Trump, the Governor probably couldn't tell you what net neutrality even is in one-on-one conversation. Needless to say, Osgood and her family didn't walk away charmed from her first run in with civil engagement:

"Osgood showed the letter to her grandfather, Rick Osgood, a LePage supporter who didn’t like the tone of the governor’s response. Rick Osgood has voted for LePage twice and supports much of what the governor is doing in Maine, but he called LePage’s message “just a snide remark.” “I think it’s mighty rude,” he said."

Again, a lot of the folks that aided and supported this latest attack on net neutrality don't really understand the backlash that's headed their direction, especially among younger voters. In their heads, they've heroically fought back a "government takeover of the internet" because they're letting blind ideology drive the car. In reality, they've made a stupid, unpopular, economically unsupportable decision that's going to impact voting decisions for the next decade. Watching many of them realize this when election time rolls around should provide at least a modicum of entertainment value in the wake of one of the worst tech policy decisions in a generation.

Filed Under: maine, net neutrality, paul lepage

Governor Tells High School Students He'd Like To Shoot A Student's Dad; Arrest/Investigation Fail To Ensue

from the hahaha-but-srsly-i-want-to-kill-ur-dad-jk dept

We've recently discussed at length the subpoena and gag order issued by the Assistant US Attorney over some tasteless, but innocuous, comments made by Reason readers. Anyone who's spent any time in comment sections would have seen these comments as nothing more than the internet being the internet -- a place where hyperbole and stupidity very often outweighs thought and nuance. The comments are being treated as serious threats by the US government, seeing as they were posted below an article about a federal judge. Here are two of the more "violent" comments:

AgammamonI5.31.15 @ lO:47AMltt
Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

AlanI5.31.15 @ 12:09PMltt
It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot.
FTFY.

croakerI6.1.15 @ 11:06AMltt
Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you
feed them in feet first.

Cloudbusterl6.l.15 @ 2:40PMIIt
Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

And yet, when a prominent political figure says roughly the same thing -- TWICE! (possibly) -- it's not followed up by the issuing of subpoenas or government-led investigations.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage's joke about shooting a political cartoonist is falling flat.

The son of Bangor Daily News cartoonist George Danby said LePage made the remark after he asked what the governor thought of his father's cartoons Wednesday during an event at Dirigo Boys State, a youth leadership program.

The governor told a crowd of high school students he would like to "shoot" this cartoonist. This was said directly to the cartoonist's son during a Q&A session with the governor. (Video -- albeit silent -- of the incident located here.) The Bangor Daily News noted the audience of teens laughed and took it as a joke. And it was, albeit a horrifically tasteless one considering cartoonists have very recently been shot for expressing their views. (That the governor's joke about shooting someone, delivered at a school event, wasn't immediately greeted with a swarm of police officers and strongly-worded condemnations by school officials is yet another bit of hypocrisy…)

Cartoonist George Danby -- the one the governor would like to shoot -- doesn't find the joke particularly funny. But as offended as he is, he's only asking for an apology, not an investigation. (And he still hasn't received one.)

But this isn't an isolated experience. It appears Governor LePage would like to kill many, many people.

A day after Gov. Paul LePage told a group of high school students that he would “like to shoot” a Bangor Daily News cartoonist, a top advocate for expanding passenger rail to Lewiston-Auburn said that LePage earlier this month said state lawmakers from Lewiston should be “rounded up and executed in the public square.”

That this alleged statement -- made on government property in a government building -- wasn't greeted with police officers, arrests, etc. is also hypocritical. Given the paranoiac thinking that has passed for "caution" since 2001, someone talking about shooting people while in a government building is usually considered to be something best handled with deployments of force and zealous prosecution. Then there's the fact that this joke Godwins itself by aligning Governor LePage with other political figures who had opponents rounded up and shot.

That LePage ever delivered this second shooting "joke" is still debatable. One person attending this meeting in the governor's office claims to have heard it. Other attendees disagree. But either way, we have at least one confirmed instance of a political figure claiming he'd like to shoot someone he doesn't like.

But there's no investigation underway and no one is calling for an indictment of LePage for issuing a "threat." Because it isn't one. It's simply hyperbolic speech uttered without intent or desire to actually follow through with such an act. It's what people do when expressing displeasure with someone or something. It happens all the time. Except when it happens in a comment section and the subject is a federal judge, it suddenly becomes a threat worthy of investigation and obfuscation by the US Attorney's Office.

When it's a politician "targeting" a little person, no one cares, even with the recent Charlie Hebdo shooting as a backdrop -- a justification for cartoonist George Danby to take this "threat" very personally indeed. But Danby doesn't think LePage truly wants him dead and recognizes it for what it is. The "little people" who aren't afforded the full power of their government are much more rational than those with it at their disposal.

Filed Under: comments, doj, george danby, governor, hyperbole, investigation, maine, paul lepage, true threats