https://twitter.com/nathanpboston/status/998146527058112517
It’s the second time something like this has been reported, except this time the councilor’s twitter account seems specifically intended for constituent service, and the blocked user was an actual constituent. The action seems to have been taken due to persistent criticism. When is it acceptable for a councilor to block a constituent?
Please post the series and dates of the persistent criticism… so we can get the whole story…
It’s not acceptable for a public official to block a constituent.
But it’s also not acceptable for a public official or a government agency to be communicating on topics of public interest via privately-owned, for-profit social media platforms in the first place.
Constituents shouldn’t need to sign up for accounts with private companies, thereby handing over their private information and being subjected to the disgusting advertising practices of Facebook and Twitter, simply in order to keep abreast of developments in local government and engage with their representatives.
If the councilors want to have social media accounts to tell us about their BBQs or baby showers or trips to the Cape, fine – but any communication even remotely related to transportation, zoning, education, safety or any other topic that impacts the public should be done transparently and openly through official channels.
It wouldn’t take much to set up a clone Twitter or Facebook interface on the newtonma.gov site which would be subject to clear rules and allow for completely open access to everyone.
This is completely unacceptable. But why should anybody be surprised? Cote voted to block implementation of a ballot initiative passed by a majority of his constituents. Would an elected official like that even think twice before blocking one constituent on twitter? Of course not!
@Bugek, you can do a quick search yourself. Mine comes up with this and this.
I could see blocking if a constituent was being verbally abusive, but that’s not the case here. Yes, I can see that having someone posting that much at you might get annoying, but that’s part of the job. I don’t see any tweets that cross the line to being abusive or threatening.
I’ve got nothing against Mr. Cote personally, and although my tweets to him were pointed they have all been focused on policy.
I want West Newton Square to be safe for all users, including bike riders of all ages. Today I saw a young family of 4 using the gorgeous parking-protected bike lane in St. Mary’s square on the Boston/Brookline border. If those cities can do it, Newton can too. Instead of assuming we can’t do what many other cities are doing, we should be reaching out to learn how those cities have done what they’ve done.
Mr. Cote blocking me has provided an opportunity to resume the public conversation on what kind of West Newton Square we want – prioritizing the car, as its always done, or a street that works for all users. I thank him for elevating the issue.
It would be unacceptable if that were their only form of communication, but there’s nothing wrong with it being one form. But even so, given our current Tweeter-in-Chief, I think that ship has sailed.
I hate to keep beating this dead horse, but I’m still having trouble seeing how we create a street that works for all users in West Newton Square when the redo of Auburndale Square was – and continues to be – such a hot mess.
Related to this is what I see as an overlooked argument for government regulation of the internet- the requirement that companies with > n ( I forget what n is ) employees MUST file they’re payroll taxes online. Cannot use the postal service. If the government ( fed or state or city) is requiring you to communicate somewhat sensitive information ( employee info ) via the internet, or pay taxes only on the internet, the government has an obligation to make sure that the service providers, which often have monopoly markets, are providing open, non prejudicial service to all companies.
If Washington Street is going to be so much more dense with residents, why not have a light rail with protected bike lanes right down the middle?
Thanks for your advocacy, Nathan. Parked cars make for a much safer barrier than some paint on the road for cyclists. And not that much changes for the cars.
Jim … c’mon. Don’t you know how to “mute” someone? Regardless, Nathan is a great guy. Have some courage to read his views.
Counselor Cote should not have blocked this constituent. I am struggling to come up with a scenario in which it would be appropriate to do so.
With that stated, can we please step back for a moment and recognize that Nathan would likely not have been blocked if his question wasn’t written in a baiting and facetious tone?
One is, and should continue be allowed to express his or her own views to an elected official in whatever language they choose. However, if Nathan was really interested in a substantive response from Counselor Cote, he could have formed his question a little less sardonically.
Again, Cote was wrong to block Nathan, but I have a hard time reading this post without also considering that the way in which the question was asked is not helping to raise the level of discourse between elected officials and their constituents.
I can be something of a brat so I understand why Councilor Norton doesn’t want me reading her Tweets or re-Tweeting her.
But Nathan Phillips is as nice a guy as you’d ever meet.
It’s Twitter, not the .gov email for city councilors.
While it may be politically unwise for a city councilor to block a resident’s tweets, he does have a right to do so. The communication was broken before anybody blocked anybody else.
A while back, Jake Auchincloss blocked me from commenting on his “Jake for Newton” Facebook page, and Setti Warren blocked me immediately after asking how much money he invested into combating the opioid epidemic in Newton. As much as I disagree with blocking the voice of anyone from a conversation, the bottom line here is that Jim, Jake, Setti or anyone for that matter are free to control their social media accounts as they see fit within the bounds of the law. Newton City Councilors are the embodiment of hard work. In addition to the many thankless responsibilities of holding local office, many if not most juggle the challenges of raising families and building careers. It’s a tough and demanding job that requires lots of sacrifice. @Jim, thanks for all that you do.
In reading through this thread I was struck by the thought that by the nature of how Twitter is used isn’t really the way to have a conversation/discuss an issue. It is each person stating their own snippet of thoughts. Just think how the President uses it. IF you want to solve a problem I think there are better ways to engage.
Wonders never cease. I agree with Tom. Elected officials have an email address and phone number listed on the city website if you want to engage in an effective conversation with them.
Twitter, in particular, is an ineffective as a means of exchanging ideas and any elected official would be out of his/her mind to engage in a back and forth with a constituent on it. Same with FB.
“As much as I disagree with blocking the voice of anyone from a conversation, the bottom line here is that Jim, Jake, Setti or anyone for that matter are free to control their social media accounts as they see fit within the bounds of the law.”
@Tom– No one has suggested that anyone broke the law. The question is one of propriety. Should a City Councilor who uses a twitter account to discuss the public’s business, block certain members of the public from seeing their tweets? It’s not a crime, but it sure aint the right thing to do!
@Tom – the difference is that you were blocked from posting on their FB pages, but not from seeing them. It would be one thing if Cote had muted Nathan so he wouldn’t see anything Nathan posted. But if a twitter account is being used by a City Councilor to share information with constituents, he shouldn’t block constituents from reading it.
Oops – did NOT mean to make all that text italic!
I think blocking constituents on social media is a very Trumpian thing to do and politically unwise. I won’t forget which councillors block people and it may reflect how I vote. Obviously it’s within their rights to do it, but they should be aware that it could hurt their careers. Here they’re already getting negative publicity!
I am heartened by the continuation of this conversation. I would like to offer one last thought that I believe some people touched on in recent comments:
If Nathan Phillips was seeking a substantive response, he could have direct messaged the Councilor o Twitter or sent a message to his .gov email.
Instead, he baited him publicly and facetiously on Twitter, with the aim of getting a chuckle from his own followers as much as getting a response from the Councilor (in my opinion, i don’t claim to be a mind reader. that’s just how I interpreted it).
“Counselor Cote, I ask you to please reconsider your position on unprotected bike lanes. Do not do it for me, do it for all of the children who are about to be biking around Newton on Summer vacation. This is an issue of great importance for many of your constituents and their families”
^I feel like something like that would have conveyed the same sentiment in a more productive way.
I am not, nor have I ever said that Nathan Phillips is not a “nice guy”. What I was saying is that his question could have been worded in a way that wasn’t potentially counterproductive to fostering an open dialogue with our elected officials, and I’m surprised, but not confused about why he got blocked. He didn’t get blocked for his question. he got blocked for the way in which it was asked.
Originally, all I was saying is let’s maybe hold our horses before jumping up and down about a resident getting blocked on twitter for “asking a question,” when there is some additional context to consider.
A New York court just ruled that it was improper for Donald Trump to block a follower.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.477261/gov.uscourts.nysd.477261.72.0.pdf
The City Councilor’s blocking constituents should read the court’s opinion and decide whether they made the proper choice. The answer is likely “No. It was wrong the choice.”
Doug C, I just saw that as well- while that ruling may specifically be applicable to federal officials, at the very least the principle should apply.
And as others have pointed out, there are ways to filter “noise” out there on Twitter and elsewhere if one feels a correspondent is being more insistent than one would like.
The federal court ruled that Trump was violating the First Amendment rights of other twitter users by blocking them from expressing their views in a public forum. The decision clearly applies to the situation in Newton as well.
Casual reader, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that this is the first or only way that Nathan tried to contact Councilor Cote, but even so, is it not fair game to ask a councilor a question in public or question or even protest his votes or statements in public meetings? It seems that Nathan was using Twitter deliberately to bring attention to the issue or perhaps even publicly shame Councilor Cote. Do you think that’s out of bounds?
The sardonic tone was hardly limited to the Internet. Nathan charges that the PS&T councilors set the tone when they mocked his viewpoints in a public meeting. I don’t think Councilor Cote was the worst offender, but he did not distance himself from those comments either.
Councilor Cote and I have decided to sit down over coffee and see if we can’t build some common ground. We both care about safe streets for all users, and that seems to be a great foundation to reboot the conversation.
Nice going, Nathan and Jim!
I’m wondering why Jane is congratulating Cote? It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a public official congratulated for violating the First Amendment rights of a constituent. We have a serious problem in Newton. Most of our elected “leaders” have no respect for the people they’ve been elected to serve. They should be held accountable, not given a pat on the back…
It’s no secret that my frustration with these office holders [like Cote] is tied to their violation of the democratic process. [I don’t want to be disingenuous by not mentioning that in this post]. The arrogance involved in blocking implementation of a ballot box vote is immeasurable. It’s demonstrative of the very same issue that’s been the topic of this thread… a lack of respect for voters.
Hi Folks,
Today is the 1st time that I have checked out V14 in awhile and I was actually looking today about the Bat story. So I was surprised to see this story had legs, and I didn’t ignore responding, I just didn’t know it was on the front burner.
People that know me will attest that I am friendly and available and that I go to meetings of friends, and not so good friends, but I will go to give everyone a voice.
As a Marine I served to ensure you have a voice and I stay committed to that ideal!
@Shawn has a good point I could’ve muted, but I’m not totally up on techology and the best way to do these things. I actually blocked that quite awhile ago and forgot about it, but I didn’t think its a big deal because it probably happens to me? Nathan emailed me the other day to meet, which is preferable as I would have met with him weeks ago rather than play it out over social media.
I am very available just call me, or email.
Thank you.
@Councilor Cote: Thanks for the explanation. We recommend that every city councilor floss and check Village 14 twice a day.
Or simply remove cyber bullying media channels…