Now that a federal judge has ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Donald Trump to block people on Twitter, does that change your views on whether or not Newton City Councilors Emily Norton, Jim Cote should block constituents on social media sites?
Should the Trump Twitter ruling apply to local officials?
by Greg Reibman | May 25, 2018 | Newton | 10 comments
Does the City Council respect the First Amendment? It’s a demonstrable fact that they don’t respect the will of the voters or the democratic process. To my reading, this court ruling regarding Trump’s twitter clearly applies to “tweets” from the City Council.
No it doesn’t apply to our Councillors. The judge ruling very specifically hinged on the fact that the White House “exterted governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account.”
If an elected official has a personal Twitter, Facebook, etc account they are legally free to block whoever they like just as you or I can. The issue would only be likely to come up if there were some city run or controlled Twitter accounts that citizens were being blocked from
Jim Cote’s twitter account name, “JimCoteWard3.” The account was used to discuss public business. I think the court ruling applies.
Interesting that V14 posts Trump photos with Cote and Emily. Guilt by association or kind of a dirty smear.
Typical .
Bill: Norton and Cote are the only known councilors who’ve blocked Newton voters on Twitter. If you, or any else, know of others, please share.
On another post (can’t remember which) Tom Davis said that he was blocked by Jake Auchincloss and Setti Warren.
@Mary: I was blocked from commenting on Jake and Setti’s Facebook pages, which would require a separate though similar legal analysis as the one at hand. Setti blocked me from commenting on his “campaign” Facebook page, which based on my understanding of the law, he had every right to do. Residents blocked from Jake’s Facebook page, on the other hand, could bring a claim against him and would likely win because he uses the Facebook page at issue to communicate with his constituents in his capacity as a public official. Personally, I take little issue with Jake blocking me from commenting on his Facebook page as he works hard to make himself accessible in other ways.
Maybe it’s just me, but I believe we should expect the highest level of transparency from elected officials engaged in conducting the public’s business. It’s about respecting the voters who put you in office.
Regardless of legality, public officials should never block someone on Twitter. Constituents have a right to know what their elected officials are up to.
In an age when newspapers barely if at all cover local news, blogs like this and social media like Twitter are the only place to find out what public officials are up to. Blocking someone on Twitter does more than prevent them from commenting, it prevents them from viewing the news their elected representatives are posting. That is deeply problematic if we’re going to continue to have informed local democracy.
@Bryan,
I always find it troubling when a brother or sister at the bar says “regardless of the legality”. As for the public having a right to know what elected officials are “up to”, does that include whether they are at the park with their kids? Does that include pictures of their pets, any and every personal detail that a person who is elected may choose to share on their own personal social media with their group of friends? Do they relinquish all privacy because they choose to serve as elected officials? We both know that the answer to that is a resounding “NO”. I trust you meant to say that the public has the right to know the official positions of their elected officials, and with that I certainly agree. But as for knowing what they are “up to” at all times, we do not own those we elect.