The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, just a few weeks ago, that “cyberspace — the vast democratic forums of the Internet … social media in particular” have become the most important places for an exchange of views as envisioned under the First Amendment.
Although the June decision struck down North Carolina’s broad ban on the use of social media by convicted sex offenders as a violation of the Constitution, it sends an important message about the court’s views on social media as a sort of town square that must be open to all.
So, what happens when an elected official uses social media as a platform for spreading his or her version of reality and blocks dissent? So far, courts have not looked favorably on this behavior and have ruled that blocking people from commenting on social media posts and participating in online discussions violates the First Amendment.
A federal court in Virginia ruled in late July that a member of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors violated the First Amendment by removing a comment that a local resident posted on her Facebook page because it offended her. She also temporarily blocked the resident from posting further comments on Facebook.
“Indeed, the suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards,” the court said in its July 25 ruling.
Viewpoint discrimination. That’s the perfect description of what a growing number of thin-skinned elected officials, like Gov. Paul LePage and President Donald Trump, are doing when they have unflattering comments removed and block those who post them from from social media, namely Facebook and Twitter.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued several governors for blocking people from their Facebook pages and deleting comments. The group’s Maine chapter had asked LePage to stop deleting comments and blocking people from his page and filed a lawsuit against the governor on Tuesday. The Knight First Amendment Institute has sued Trump for blocking users on his Twitter account. That case is pending.
The case of LePage’s Facebook page, which is labeled “Paul LePage, Maine’s Governor,” is a bit complicated because it was apparently started by a group of supporters, not the governor himself. It is not clear who writes the posts, or controls who can post, on the page, although it is controlled by his political consultant Brent Littlefield, the Portland Press Herald has reported.
Regardless of how it started and who manages it, the page has morphed into the governor’s official Facebook page. It carries the white check mark in a blue circle that means “Facebook confirms this is an authentic page for this public figure, media company or brand.” Facebook doesn’t just hand out these “verified page” marks, so someone asked Facebook for it and the company confirmed that it was “an authentic page” for LePage, as Maine’s governor. LePage has no other Facebook page in his capacity as governor.
The governor’s official state website linked to the Facebook page, which touts LePage’s accomplishments, earlier this year.
Censoring comments and blocking users is especially troubling because the governor has said he uses Facebook to bypass the media and get his message directly to Maine people. If he and his supporters wanted to create a place for like-minded people to post comments, they could have created a fan page or a private page, not a public account that has the markings of an official Facebook page for the governor.
A public Facebook page gives the impression that is part of the public sphere, says John Ippolito, a new media professor at the University of Maine. He likens blocking someone on social media to an elected official never calling on a specific reporter during press conferences. Worse, it also prevents those who are blocked from conversing with, or even reading the posts of, other people on the site, locking them out of the conversation.
For supporters of politicians who block critical comments, a “filter bubble” is created, Ippolito says. So supporters see only comments and ideas that they agree with, which runs counter to the recent court rulings that liken social media to a public forum or virtual town square.
The simplest solution is to maintain an open forum, allowing all comments, positive and negative.