Current Events > AOC is still blocking critics on Twitter.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Only the right are allowed to block critics.
---

chrono625 posted...

Are you kidding? She always uses it regarding her policies and to communicate on a government level.

Is she making announcements there and only there? In the case against Trump, the court found that since Trump uses his Twitter as the primary channel to announce policy decisions, staff changes etc, it's used in an official capacity. There's a clear distinction between that and what AOC does. Look, a court may still rule that she uses it in an official capacity, I'm just saying there's a case to be made, because it's clearly different from how Trump does it.

chrono625 posted...

Her own bio advertises her position as a government official.

So? Putting where you work in your Twitter bio doesn't automatically mean that you're using the account in an official capacity.

Even then, the reason Trump lost the case was also that he blocked the users specifically because of their opinions. If AOC could show that she's blocking people for other reasons like, say, harassment, then again the Trump precedent can't be applied.
---

scar the 1 posted...

So? Putting where you work in your Twitter bio doesn't automatically mean that you're using the account in an official capacity.

If you work for a company and use that company name in your bio, they can fire you for tweets and posts even on your own time.

This would be no different.

If she is truly saying this is a personal account, then just make an account that is strictly about her political position and be done with it.


---

smoliske posted...

same thing happened with trump, it went to court and trump lost and had to stop blocking critics

Apparently he was told to but that hasnt stopped him from blocking anyone.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

If shes using her personal Twitter to post official statements, which is what Trump does, then fair, next.

If not, then iffy imo, but probably fair, next cause shes a public figure.

Though always fair, next if shes blocking constituents.

PRetty much this minus maybe the second line. IF they truly aren't constituents then I would say she has a right to block them but how the hell do you prove that? Address checks on every person that follows her?

Probably easier just to say "if you hold public office don't post on here" and be done with it.


---

scar the 1 posted...

Would you care to elaborate?
In the Trump case the court opinion was quite specific, right? Specific in terms of how it defined Twitter accounts as a public forum under certain conditions, IIRC specifically if it's used by a govt official in an official capacity. There's certainly a case to be made that AOC isn't using the account in an official capacity. Furthermore, the plaintiff in the Trump case argued specifically that they were blocked because of their views. If AOC is blocking someone for e.g., harassing them, I think again that there would be a case to make.

It is specific about that, but the definition of "official capacity" is very broad.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

As the court rightly held, that includes any time that theyre 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 doesnt change that.

---

sondast posted...

ABC doesn't use her private Twitter account as an official government account like Trump does.

She's a public official. I'm pretty sure that at the very least her constituents are entitled to anything she says publicly, regardless of whether it says AOC or AOC_HouseRep, especially considering that social media is public space by virtue of its design.

---

being a constituent basically has nothing to do with it, which makes sense since public officials make decisions that have an impact on more than just people in their district

---

Balrog0 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Would you care to elaborate?
In the Trump case the court opinion was quite specific, right? Specific in terms of how it defined Twitter accounts as a public forum under certain conditions, IIRC specifically if it's used by a govt official in an official capacity. There's certainly a case to be made that AOC isn't using the account in an official capacity. Furthermore, the plaintiff in the Trump case argued specifically that they were blocked because of their views. If AOC is blocking someone for e.g., harassing them, I think again that there would be a case to make.

It is specific about that, but the definition of "official capacity" is very broad.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

As the court rightly held, that includes any time that theyre 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 doesnt change that.

Alright. Did the judge in the Trump case uphold this, or add more specific details? It would certainly weaken the case that it's just her private account.
---