Stand Up for Your (Social Media) Rights
 |
| Brea Sours, Wired Magazine, in Should Facebook and Twitter Be Regulated Under the First Amendment? |
Politics and social media. Nowadays, the two terms combined immediately conjure up thoughts of echo chambers, Russian bots and anonymous vitriol. These and many other frightening phenomena have come into being thanks to the ubiquity of social media; they undermine the quality of public discourse and make it increasingly difficult to have nuanced and productive political debates.
On the other hand, there is good mixed in with the bad when
we consider politics in the age of social media: We learn about all sorts of
local and national news, formulate political opinions, rationally express and
disseminate dissenting perspectives, learn about newly emerging struggles for
social justice, and even speak about the perils of social media on social media. It is ironic that we
all too often lose sight of the mixture of good and bad while we’re criticizing
social media for impeding our ability to detect nuance and understand
complexity in the world.
It is dangerous to trivialize social media and write it off
as something that simply degrades the quality of communication. If we do, we
are more likely to overlook the fact that free speech, one of the major pillars
of democratic society, is actively being undermined online in new ways.
For example, the President regularly blocks Twitter users whose dissenting responses were able to reach millions of people. As a result, as one of his blocked Twitter users who is part of a Knight First Amendment Institute lawsuit against the President for infringing upon the free speech rights of social media users notes:
For example, the President regularly blocks Twitter users whose dissenting responses were able to reach millions of people. As a result, as one of his blocked Twitter users who is part of a Knight First Amendment Institute lawsuit against the President for infringing upon the free speech rights of social media users notes:
Because of my audience on Twitter, I can reach as many as 100,000 people with one of my tweets replying to the president. It’s true that there are some people who use the reply threads on Twitter just to trade insults, which may not be the most productive sort of conversation. But the reply threads also allow you to see a range of opinions from people who agree and disagree...and I’m troubled that the president can create a space on Twitter -- where there are millions of people -- that he can manipulate to give the impression that more agree with him than actually do.
Similarly, Plattsburgh's mayor, Colin Read, is blocking users from his Facebook page--or at least deleting their comments--for posing difficult questions and alternative points of view. I know because he's now blocked me twice. Although the Supreme Court has held since New York Times v. Sullivan that the First Amendment contains “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials,” the posts that the mayor deleted and banned me over were indisputably civil; in fact, the first time I simply asked a question, a question that I will return to in the second part of this series as it involves another manner in which the Read administration manipulates the flow of information in dangerous and untransparent ways.
I can no longer interact with the mayor on his page or, more importantly, communicate my dissent to his followers that use his page to inform themselves about political developments within the city. As a result, just like President Trump, the mayor is able to manufacture the illusion that more people agree with him than actually do by erasing dissent online.
What troubles me more than the violation of my constitutional right to free speech (I have at least developed other venues to make my perspectives heard, including this blog) is the potential for the mayor to do it again to others. The mayor and his supporters make this all the more likely by tapping into the ideology that reduces social media to something unproductive and something less deserving of constitutional protection than any other type of communication with a government official, even though the Supreme Court has recently stated the contrary in Packingham v. North Carolina:
When I broached the issue of my free speech violation with Councilor Rachelle Armstrong--one of Read's supporters on the common council--I was told "it's a Facebook page, not an official governmental site". When I emailed the mayor about the matter immediately after being blocked, he referred me to his campaign email and separated the issue from his role as Mayor of City of Plattsburgh. Since then, and as the city government has sunk into what a recent Sun editorial has called a state of "spiritual, fiscal and existential despair," the mayor and his supporters have largely blamed the unfounded speculation on social media for the "appearance" of a crisis (even though the Read administration regularly states that the city is in an actual crisis when politically expedient). For example, at a recent common council meeting on February 15th, Read deflected: "I know things seem to be getting increasingly ridiculous in some of the social media of late. People do try to sensationalize, or foment, create, or profit from drama, but personally I’m not really going to take that bait..." Contrary to the Supreme Court, social media according to the Read administration is solely for campaigning, idle gossip,and back-handed commentary between people, not for constitutionally protected free speech between citizens and government officials.
In many ways, the mayor is borrowing from the Trump playbook to handle this issue. In the ongoing Knight Institute suit, although the White House has admitted that the President blocked Twitter users for expressing opposing viewpoints using his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the administration argues that this is the President's "personal" account rather than his official presidential account, @POTUS. The administration claims that Trump only has to comply with the First Amendment when conducting official government business using the latter account. However, the Knight Institute argues that the government's position is "not defensible given that the president routinely uses it for official purposes and both the president and his aides have publicly described the account as official."
The Knight Institute is following in the footsteps of a recent federal court ruling, Davison v. Loudon County Board of Supervisors, here. This ruling looked beyond the title of a government representative's social media page and delved into its contents to determine whether the chair of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors was acting in an official or personal capacity when managing a Facebook page to keep in touch with constituents. Davison v. Loudon County concluded that, because the social media page in question invited users to get involved, exchange viewpoints, and ask questions online and because it carried out official business such as releasing government newsletters online, the social media page is public and must comply with the First Amendment. The ruling stated that the government official "committed a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by deleting controversial comments made by a constituent and blocking him from the page.
Even after blocking me and attempting to re-frame his presence on social media as a campaign activity a la Trump, the mayor continues to conduct official city business on Facebook. In the last two months, the mayor has issued press releases and has even unveiled updated plans to develop a mixed-use city center on Durkee Street to the public online. Furthermore, from the beginning, the mayor has espoused open communication and transparency. He has encouraged constituents to articulate their viewpoints and to voice their ideas for improving Plattsburgh online. Not too long ago, he billed himself as the social media candidate, promising to go above and beyond what is constitutionally required to foster open government:
Then there is the matter of the name of Mayor Read's Facebook page. At least Trump has two Twitter accounts that his defense can point towards to better maintain the illusion of a separation between the affairs of Trump the person and Trump the public official. Read only has one page that was entitled "Colin Read, Mayor of the City of Plattsburgh, New York" before I was blocked and was immediately changed to "Personal Page for Colin Read, Mayor of the City of Plattsburgh, New York" after I emailed him about his unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer and this is rather new legal territory to navigate. Perhaps the law would rule in Read's favor here if the matter was addressed in court, although I sincerely doubt it. Putting legal considerations aside, you're probably wondering: What question could I have possibly asked to trigger the mayor to act in such a legally and ethically dubious manner? If the mayor is taking these risky measures to block the dissenting perspective of one person on social media, how else is he blocking dissent and impeding the free flow of information--and to what ends? I will explore these questions in more detail in part two of this series. For now, I want to conclude with a brief comment on the Sun's recent editorial, "City in crisis--and the mayor knows it," because it speaks to the role of social media in local politics.
The editorial is mostly spot on and correctly dispels a lot of the mayor's spin about his current, precarious political situation. It even notes that some of the criticisms circulating on social media regarding the Read administration are well founded. However, it concludes by stating the following:
There is an important omission at work here the belies much of what I just wrote above. I agree, don't offer backhanded comments on social media; we need to keep political discourse grounded in facts and evidence. I agree, show up in person at City Hall to make your voice heard; it may very well make more of an impact than expressing your viewpoints online. I agree, to change things we need to "publicly demand change." However, whereas this passage assumes that publicly making one's voice heard can only happen through old-fashioned channels like showing up to a meeting in person or, presumably, writing letters to the editor, speaking up publicly in the 21st century now also includes voicing dissent on the social media pages of public officials--it makes more of a difference than Plattsburgh's old guard might realize. Even the quintessential old guard, the justices on the Supreme Court, have noticed the sea change that has taken place in this new century--as usual, it's time for Plattsburgh to catch up and stop living in the past.
I can no longer interact with the mayor on his page or, more importantly, communicate my dissent to his followers that use his page to inform themselves about political developments within the city. As a result, just like President Trump, the mayor is able to manufacture the illusion that more people agree with him than actually do by erasing dissent online.
What troubles me more than the violation of my constitutional right to free speech (I have at least developed other venues to make my perspectives heard, including this blog) is the potential for the mayor to do it again to others. The mayor and his supporters make this all the more likely by tapping into the ideology that reduces social media to something unproductive and something less deserving of constitutional protection than any other type of communication with a government official, even though the Supreme Court has recently stated the contrary in Packingham v. North Carolina:
"A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more... A basic rule, for example, is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights...Even in the modern era, these places are still essential venues for public gatherings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply to learn and inquire...While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” in general... and social media in particular."Let's face it, while taking regular jabs at social media has become a new national pastime, social media has increasingly become the place where we learn about and formulate opinions about the political world. When dealing with Plattsburgh politics in particular, where there are no opinion polls, where only a small handful of people are able to attend public meetings and people opt to watch meetings on Youtube in much greater numbers, and where investigative journalism and opinion articles are wanting due to the limited financial resources of our local press, the social media pages of elected officials are an essential venue to learn about political developments and to express dissent and communicate alternative viewpoints to the public.
When I broached the issue of my free speech violation with Councilor Rachelle Armstrong--one of Read's supporters on the common council--I was told "it's a Facebook page, not an official governmental site". When I emailed the mayor about the matter immediately after being blocked, he referred me to his campaign email and separated the issue from his role as Mayor of City of Plattsburgh. Since then, and as the city government has sunk into what a recent Sun editorial has called a state of "spiritual, fiscal and existential despair," the mayor and his supporters have largely blamed the unfounded speculation on social media for the "appearance" of a crisis (even though the Read administration regularly states that the city is in an actual crisis when politically expedient). For example, at a recent common council meeting on February 15th, Read deflected: "I know things seem to be getting increasingly ridiculous in some of the social media of late. People do try to sensationalize, or foment, create, or profit from drama, but personally I’m not really going to take that bait..." Contrary to the Supreme Court, social media according to the Read administration is solely for campaigning, idle gossip,and back-handed commentary between people, not for constitutionally protected free speech between citizens and government officials.
In many ways, the mayor is borrowing from the Trump playbook to handle this issue. In the ongoing Knight Institute suit, although the White House has admitted that the President blocked Twitter users for expressing opposing viewpoints using his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the administration argues that this is the President's "personal" account rather than his official presidential account, @POTUS. The administration claims that Trump only has to comply with the First Amendment when conducting official government business using the latter account. However, the Knight Institute argues that the government's position is "not defensible given that the president routinely uses it for official purposes and both the president and his aides have publicly described the account as official."
The Knight Institute is following in the footsteps of a recent federal court ruling, Davison v. Loudon County Board of Supervisors, here. This ruling looked beyond the title of a government representative's social media page and delved into its contents to determine whether the chair of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors was acting in an official or personal capacity when managing a Facebook page to keep in touch with constituents. Davison v. Loudon County concluded that, because the social media page in question invited users to get involved, exchange viewpoints, and ask questions online and because it carried out official business such as releasing government newsletters online, the social media page is public and must comply with the First Amendment. The ruling stated that the government official "committed a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by deleting controversial comments made by a constituent and blocking him from the page.
Even after blocking me and attempting to re-frame his presence on social media as a campaign activity a la Trump, the mayor continues to conduct official city business on Facebook. In the last two months, the mayor has issued press releases and has even unveiled updated plans to develop a mixed-use city center on Durkee Street to the public online. Furthermore, from the beginning, the mayor has espoused open communication and transparency. He has encouraged constituents to articulate their viewpoints and to voice their ideas for improving Plattsburgh online. Not too long ago, he billed himself as the social media candidate, promising to go above and beyond what is constitutionally required to foster open government:
Then there is the matter of the name of Mayor Read's Facebook page. At least Trump has two Twitter accounts that his defense can point towards to better maintain the illusion of a separation between the affairs of Trump the person and Trump the public official. Read only has one page that was entitled "Colin Read, Mayor of the City of Plattsburgh, New York" before I was blocked and was immediately changed to "Personal Page for Colin Read, Mayor of the City of Plattsburgh, New York" after I emailed him about his unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
 |
| The title of Mayor Read's Facebook page on January 3rd, 2018, the day I was first blocked. |
Granted, I'm not a lawyer and this is rather new legal territory to navigate. Perhaps the law would rule in Read's favor here if the matter was addressed in court, although I sincerely doubt it. Putting legal considerations aside, you're probably wondering: What question could I have possibly asked to trigger the mayor to act in such a legally and ethically dubious manner? If the mayor is taking these risky measures to block the dissenting perspective of one person on social media, how else is he blocking dissent and impeding the free flow of information--and to what ends? I will explore these questions in more detail in part two of this series. For now, I want to conclude with a brief comment on the Sun's recent editorial, "City in crisis--and the mayor knows it," because it speaks to the role of social media in local politics.
The editorial is mostly spot on and correctly dispels a lot of the mayor's spin about his current, precarious political situation. It even notes that some of the criticisms circulating on social media regarding the Read administration are well founded. However, it concludes by stating the following:
Rather than offer backhanded comments on social media, show up at City Hall and keep your lawmakers on task. If you’re disaffected, publicly demand change.
There is an important omission at work here the belies much of what I just wrote above. I agree, don't offer backhanded comments on social media; we need to keep political discourse grounded in facts and evidence. I agree, show up in person at City Hall to make your voice heard; it may very well make more of an impact than expressing your viewpoints online. I agree, to change things we need to "publicly demand change." However, whereas this passage assumes that publicly making one's voice heard can only happen through old-fashioned channels like showing up to a meeting in person or, presumably, writing letters to the editor, speaking up publicly in the 21st century now also includes voicing dissent on the social media pages of public officials--it makes more of a difference than Plattsburgh's old guard might realize. Even the quintessential old guard, the justices on the Supreme Court, have noticed the sea change that has taken place in this new century--as usual, it's time for Plattsburgh to catch up and stop living in the past.
Comments
Post a Comment