Tag Archives: First Amendment

Public Officials Cannot Block Your Comments on Their Facebook Page

Leave a reply

Just you know, your comments cannot be deleted or blocked on a public official’s page. It’s probably Facebook that is used most frequently by politicians and bureaucrats.

If you feel that you’re likely to be censored by a public official or page, contribute your comments and take a screenshot. This way, if your comments disappear, there is proof.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I’m sharing the entire report from the ACLU for easy reading.

By Vera Eidelman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology ProjectJANUARY 9, 2019 | 12:00 PM

” One of the core purposes of the First Amendment is to allow people, regardless of their views, to hold the government accountable through expression. So, if your elected representative has an official Facebook page where she invites comments, can she block you from commenting because you criticize her work?

According to a federal appeals court, the answer is a resounding no.

On Monday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the interactive portion of a public official’s Facebook page is a “public forum,” so an official cannot block people from it because of the opinions they hold.

The case arose after the chair of a local board of supervisors in Virginia, Phyllis Randall, briefly blocked a critic from her official Facebook page and deleted a comment he made about her colleagues’ management of public funds.

The critic, Brian Davison, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, filed a lawsuit arguing that Randall had violated his First Amendment rights by removing him from a public forum — space the government makes available for people’s expressive activity — because she disagreed with his views. Randall countered that she has the authority to control the page’s content — including the comments. (President Trump has used some of the same arguments in a lawsuit against him for blocking people on Twitter.)  

We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Davison, arguing that officials cannot prevent people from joining in a public conversation because of their viewpoints,  and the three-judge appeals court panel agreed.

It is important to remember that people who hold public office can wear two hats: Sometimes, they act as private individuals, and other times they are government actors. While they maintain their First Amendment rights when acting as private individuals, they are subject to the limits the First Amendment places on the government whenever they’re doing government work.

As the court rightly held, that includes any time that they’re controlling a Facebook page they maintain in their official roles. Specifically, the court recognized that when a public official uses a Facebook page as a tool of governance — that is, when she uses it to inform the public about her government work, solicits input on policy issues through the page, and swathes it “in the trappings of her office” — she is controlling the page as a government actor.

And if she opens that page to public comment, the interactive space of the Facebook page constitutes a public forum. The fact that the page exists on a website owned by a private company doesn’t change that.

That means that, when a public official blocks critics from the page because of their viewpoints, she violates the Constitution. Indeed, the right to criticize the government is at the heart of the First Amendment. The court specifically recognized blocking as infringing on that right, noting that blocking someone in order to silence criticism of government work is itself evidence of government action.

The Fourth Circuit is the first appellate court to opine on this issue, and its order controls public officials and agencies in Virginia and nearby states. Elsewhere around the country, public officials have also stopped censoring critics on their social media pages thanks to the work of the ACLU.

These cases help to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain protected as our democracy increasingly moves online. The fact that a public official disagrees with you on an issue doesn’t mean she can silence you. Indeed, it means the opposite — and that holds true whether you’re speaking out in a public park, at a town hall meeting, or on a Facebook page. “

Needless to say, you have the responsibility not to use threats or violence on their page. That’s not covered under Free Speech.

LOCAL CONTACT for ACLU

General Inquiries

Send us an email to office@acluhawaii.org or call (808) 522-5900 (voice messages only, this line does NOT accept inquiries for our legal program.) 

CLICK HERE FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE. 

We’re sorry, but we can’t give legal advice over the phone.

Our office:

ACLU of Hawai‘i

P.O. Box 3410

Honolulu, HI 96801

Fax: (808) 522-5909

Ukraine Invasion: Russian Disinformation and Propaganda

Leave a reply

What’s happening in Russia is more reason why we as individuals of the Free World must fiercely protect the First Amendment – including Free Press and Free Speech.

Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Most of the world witnessed the illegal invasion on the sovereign nation of Ukraine on different media sources. Some informed Russian protested against the invasion on their homeland but were quickly arrested.

However, parts of Russian populace were in total oblivion to Putin’s atrocities on neighboring Ukraine.

There have been increased chattering about the “Russian Propaganda Machine” on its own people. Communist Russia’s stronghold against Free Press on its people is obvious.

This is a significant report from CNN.

Listen to Ukraine-based restaurateur Misha Katsurin’s personal experience about the response of his father who is living in Russia. Although Misha told his father on the phone that he woke up to bombing in Ukraine, his father insisted that Russia was in a peace mission. His father started to argue that Russia was trying to save them from the Nazi regime. His father was sure that soldiers were giving local people in Ukraine food and warm clothes, based on their in-country media reports.

Note: CNN and other network like Fox News have not consistently displayed true journalistic ideals either.

Misha Katsurin has since started a website to encourage others to call their families inside Russia. The hope is to try to circumvent the Russian propaganda machine and bring the real truth to Russia.

Choon James: Status for SB 1357 to fine motorists with flags.

Leave a reply

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that flags flown from vehicles being operated or moved on streets cause distractions and create unsafe driving conditions. The purpose of this Act is to discourage unsafe practices.

This Bill was DEFERRED to Tuesday February 8, 2022 for the 3:05PM AGENDA. SB 1357 to prohibit flags display on vehicles on roads, etc. SCROLL TO 1:30 to hear the status: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Puas70MFA

We can’t have government incrementally shutting down Free Speech and Civic Participation. Although the State Capitol is one of the most ventilated buildings in Honolulu, it’s still closed to the public. The public cannot hold signs inside its meeting places. And now this shutting down of flags flying.

The Senate Transportation Committee Chair Chris Lee said yesterday that the intent of Bill 1357 was not to infringe on First Amendment Rights. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted an unsigned testimony that it had received “numerous complaints and inquiries from the public about flags and other materials that impair the visibility of other drivers on the road. As such, we support all efforts to eliminate these unnecessary distractions.”

I wonder if DOT also received complaints and enquires about other traffic concerns.

Bill 1357 is not compelling enough except to shut down displays of discontent and public dissension. We must protect Free Speech at all costs.

There are lots of distractions and unsafe driving conditions on the road – Loose dogs. Drunk driving. Driving in opposite directions. Tourist trolleys. Huge vehicles blocking our view planes. Sign Waving. Display of huge banners on buildings along roads and so on.

The item that is most distracting and affecting road safety is the POTHOLES!!

We’re forced to keep our eyes down on the road to avoid the potholes which are EVERYWHERE. Our tires blow out. Cars swerve to try to miss the potholes on busy streets. The underbelly of the vehicles are damaged. POTHOLES are the most dangerous and most distracting.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent but our roads have become more and more dangerous. We would like the Hawaii Senate to focus on this huge distraction. It’s time to require a warranty on the road roadwork and so on to promote road safety.

It’s ridiculous that every time it rains, more potholes appear. There is no reason why the state cannot expect basic workmanship for the hundreds of millions that are spent annually.

Please terminate SB 1357 – It’s treacherous to free speech and an open democracy. Focus on the real traffic safety and driving conditions.