1st amendment violated on U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds Facebook page.

[CdwJava]

I disagree with that.

Disagree all you want. It doesn't change the fact that they don't have to let your post remain. Your right to speak your mind is not being prohibited, only your ability to post your thoughts on their page.

Walk to the local courthouse and tack a diatribe on the courthouse door and then try to tell them that you have a right to post your opinions there when they try to remove it. See how far that gets you.

The First Amendment does NOT mean - and never has meant - that you can post your thoughts or criticisms wherever you please.

My public opinion on a government ran Facebook is protected under free speech.

I'll wait for you to cite the case law that says that ...

My post was not bad and was within their rules for posting. I think such rules are bs anyway, however I made sure not to break those rules. They deleted both my post, then blocked me from commenting on future post.

Well, then, start your own Facebook Page and call it "I Hate Thunderbirds," or some such thing. You can speak your mind elsewhere - you just can't do it there, apparently.

And, as a note, many government entities have Facebook pages. At my agency we remove posts we don't like, too. You can criticize us all you want, you just don't get to do it on our web page. And while your posting was not, apparently, critical, it was also apparently not what the site managers wanted to see on it. They have that right.

 

[Just Blue]

Ok, that's the answer. Let's just move on every time our rights are violated. I don't care how small this may seem to you guys, but my argument is valid. When do we step up and say enough? Today it's deleting of Facebook posts, tomorrow it's throwing you in prison. I know that's extreme, but it sets a precedent.

Why on EARTH do you think the 1st covers you in tis way? The Gov has a FB. It is under their control. You have an option to post on said FB. THEY have the "right" delete said post.

Just because the FB is controled by the Gov does not take away their RIGHT to delete a post. For God SAKE...It's FACEBOOK! Get OVER it!!

 

[justalayman]

Everything I can find online seems to point to the fact that of its a government ran page, then I have the same rights as protected under the Constitution.

You found incorrect information.

Ok, that's the answer. Let's just move on every time our rights are violated. I don't care how small this may seem to you guys, but my argument is valid. When do we step up and say enough? Today it's deleting of Facebook posts, tomorrow it's throwing you in prison. I know that's extreme, but it sets a precedent.

Your rights were not violated. What you are demanding is the operators of the FB pages rights be violated.


that is their page. They have a right to moderate what is posted on that website. You can post anything you want on your own website because that is your venue where you can express your rights.

 

[tranquility]

The key issue is, is this page run by the government? I think not. But, some of the recent Facebook "experiments" combined with those who work their's political theory, muddles things a bit.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are being manipulated. Facebook is but one of those who manipulate.

I don't know if the OP has been wronged to a legal level; but, we are ALL being "wronged", depending on your theory of life. Manipulation for the owner's benefit is the purpose of all web connections. Including this one. My dad, the wisest man I've ever known (I might be smarter, but will never reach his level of wisdom.), wondered about the internet--How can they do this for free?

They don't.

They use us for money. Now, I suspect this site is not officially government owned and the 1st amendment does not apply. But, the fact the OP objects should not dismiss a legal remedy. The law changes. I suggest a good law student or 1st amendment clinic consultation. The OP will win nothing. He might make law to protect those who follow.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Now, I suspect this site is not officially government owned and the 1st amendment does not apply.

Assuming the opposite, does that mean "anything goes" and the OP has the constitutional right to post anything without being edited?

 

[justalayman]

I don't see whether it is run by the government or not. Just as there are restrictions on speech and action when attending the federal parks or monuments; Just as there are restrictions on speech when attending a meeting of the Congress; just as there are many laws and rules that do restrict speech in many situations, the website in question too is allowed to moderate what is posted on that website. While a person has a freedom of speech that allows most any speech they desire, there is no requirement the federal government provide the forum for them to speak.


The OP is free to establish their own forum from which to speak but they absolutely do not have a right to post anything they wish on a government operated website. A government owned forum can restrict what is posted on it. The limitation of the Constitution is the government cannot deny a person their right to free speech. In moderating a website they are not doing that as an individual website provided for a specific purpose is not restricting a person's right to freedom of speech. It is limiting their freedom of speech on that venue.

 

[tranquility]

The government can make content neutral restrictions reasonably based on time, place and manner. To deal with content (edited) speech, there must be a compelling interest done in the least restrictive manner possible.

 

[FlyingRon]

The government can make content neutral restrictions reasonably based on time, place and manner. To deal with content (edited) speech, there must be a compelling interest done in the least restrictive manner possible.

I disagree that your statement applies to this situation. What you quote is the general restrictions that the government is allowed to place on what is otherwise public discourse. That is, that for example in the most public of these situations, the FCC regulation of sexual content over broadcast television.

The government is free to exert editorial control in their own publications even if it involves contributions from the public whether it be a microphone at a government meeting, letters to the editor in a government publication, or areas of a government website.

Now if the Government went to Facebook and told them to delete any posts on the public's pages disparaging the Thunderbirds, that would be unconstitutional restraint, but on their own page, there's no principle that bars them from editorial control.

 

[CdwJava]

The government must generally permit a person to express their thoughts, but, they do not have to provide the easel and crayons with which to do it.

As I said, just try to post your thoughts on the courthouse door and claim that you have a First Amendment right to post them there.

 

[xylene]

Off topic rants on a fan page can and should be deleted.

 

[tranquility]

I disagree that your statement applies to this situation. What you quote is the general restrictions that the government is allowed to place on what is otherwise public discourse. That is, that for example in the most public of these situations, the FCC regulation of sexual content over broadcast television.

The government is free to exert editorial control in their own publications even if it involves contributions from the public whether it be a microphone at a government meeting, letters to the editor in a government publication, or areas of a government website.

Now if the Government went to Facebook and told them to delete any posts on the public's pages disparaging the Thunderbirds, that would be unconstitutional restraint, but on their own page, there's no principle that bars them from editorial control.

What I quoted is the summary of Supreme Court decisions regarding the first amendment as compared to the issue we are discussing.

Now, if it applies to a Facebook page that is "owned" by governmental employees who are managing upon the topic they are employed, that is the difficult part. We don't really have all the facts about this page. What I do know from my study of the law for many years, this is going to be an area that is going to be litigated in the future. White house Twitter and Facebook or other governmental agencies who use such media to get its message out, just because the site is "owned" by a medium level bureaucrat does not mean it is not governmentally run.

There is a TON of power in the new media and the government, no matter what "all legal like" hoops they jump through, will have to answer to the courts regarding the 1st amendment. I have no idea of the OP's compliant, but dismissing it without due consideration is not the best course. This (Type of question of governmental ownership of private media.) WILL be litigated more and more in our lifetimes. Some of the current litigation history might lead one to believe this is going to be a factual and not a legal question. Just sayin'.

 

[FlyingRon]

I know what you quoted, and you quoted items where the government attempts to exert restraint on public discourse. The situations I paraphrased in my posts explain what the government was seeking to control in those cases.

Now if you are asserting that the Air Force went in and exercised some governmental authority to delete posts on some Facebook Thunderbirds page maintained by a non-governmental entity, then I might agree with you.

However, I doubt that is what happened. What appears to have happened is someone created a social media page for the Thunderbirds and following the content controls that FACEBOOK allows has hidden whatever critical comment was entered on that page. This is no different than if I posted things you don't like on your wall.

 

[tranquility]

I know what you quoted, and you quoted items where the government attempts to exert restraint on public discourse. The situations I paraphrased in my posts explain what the government was seeking to control in those cases.

Now if you are asserting that the Air Force went in and exercised some governmental authority to delete posts on some Facebook Thunderbirds page maintained by a non-governmental entity, then I might agree with you.

However, I doubt that is what happened. What appears to have happened is someone created a social media page for the Thunderbirds and following the content controls that FACEBOOK allows has hidden whatever critical comment was entered on that page. This is no different than if I posted things you don't like on your wall.

"Someone", or, a Thunderbird? Or, one's wife?

Or, is this just some guy who goes to all the shows and watches pretty planes?

Does it make a difference?

 

[FlyingRon]

"Someone", or, a Thunderbird? Or, one's wife?

Or, is this just some guy who goes to all the shows and watches pretty planes?

Does it make a difference?

No it doesn't. I still don't know what you are getting on about. There appears to be no first amendment issue.

 

[CdwJava]

Two interesting cases that seem to point towards the issue being on uncertain footing at the moment:

http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-facebook-comments-deleted-from-senators-page/

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/hawaii-gun-group-sues-police-over-deleted-facebook-posts