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

[LsPilot82]

I'm pretty positive the page is ran by the U.S. Air Force. You guys are more than welcome to go look it up for yourselves. Like I said I read their posting rules and followed them. Also, later on that night, I tweeted on their twitter as well. My tweet was removed again and I was blocked on their twitter as well. I have screen shots if anyone would like them.

 

[CdwJava]

Until the matter is definitively resolved, your options are limited to complaining or spending a LOT of money on a lawsuit with a less than likely win.

If any case does determine that a site open for public comment and sponsored by the government must keep up statements that do not otherwise violate objective TOS, then I suspect that those sites will become read-only sites, or, the TOS will be quite narrow. Or, if even TOS violations are excluded from removal, it'll be no comment sites or these sites will be run by non-governmental folks.

My city has a Facebook page, but comments are disabled. You can RATE the site and Like things, so we get some local ne'er-do-wells who rate us at 1 star, but, we do not allow comments.

Our police association allows comments, but WE get to remove posts. Or, rather, *I* get to. I never have had to (people like us), but, I could if I wanted to.

 

[TigerD]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/wisconsin-judge-facebook-comments-protected-under-first-amendment

And the question remains...

DC

 

[Zigner]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/wisconsin-judge-facebook-comments-protected-under-first-amendment

And the question remains...

DC

How does a WI case affect this? (It doesn't)

 

[tranquility]

I read the case on Volokh a while ago. While the final result had to do with the 1st amendment, it was really the fact the person had no present means to effect the "threat" even if the words could be construed as such. It had to do with a criminal prosecution and not a government removal issue. In the case at the appellate level, there was no mention on what was done or the effect of doing it to the quote itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/03/crime-to-post-comments-containing-vulgar-insults-on-police-department-facebook-page/

With the case:
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=115994

 

[FlyingRon]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/wisconsin-judge-facebook-comments-protected-under-first-amendment

And the question remains...

DC

Did you READ the article or did you stop at the headline. The issue here is the guy being arrested for making a statement on the webpage, not that the police didn't have the authority to edit their own page.

 

[TigerD]

Did you READ the article or did you stop at the headline. The issue here is the guy being arrested for making a statement on the webpage, not that the police didn't have the authority to edit their own page.

Actually, I read the opinion. It makes a difference. The state argued that Smith's comments were not protected by the First Amendment under the fighting words doctrine. The court rejected that assertion. "Given this case law, I fail to see how Smith’s Facebook comments can properly be labeled fighting words" paragraph 16. The Court accepted that if not excepted s fighting words, the comments were entitled to First Amendment protection. "The parties further agree that the more specific question here is whether Smith’s comments constituted fighting words so that those comments are not entitled to First Amendment protection." Paragraph 8.

And that brings us back to the dance: If the comments are entitled to First Amendment protection, government action in censoring them would require that action be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. However, the OPs comments fall under political speech. Avoidance of offense and restriction of bad ideas are not compelling interests by themselves: "'[T]he government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'" Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 118 (1991) (quoting Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989)).

So, if the OP's comments are protected political speech and do not fall under an exception, can the government exercise content based restrictions and delete them merely because the medium of expression is electronic? This area is still in flux - especially when public use of private facilities and other issues are poured in. I can't say what the Court will eventually decide - I think most of us have had at least one extremely surprising SCOTUS ruling in the last couple of years. But none of us can definitively say the OP is wrong.

Now I have to say that I think if government opens any forum up to public comment, they are stuck with what people have to say. As long as those people don't run afoul of one of the exceptions to the First Amendment. (Personally, I don't think there should be any exceptions to the 1st. Say what you will. The solution to speech is more speech. It saves on bullets.)

DC

 

[tranquility]

While I agree with the tone and tenor of debtcollector`'s post, relating the original Facebook cited case seems a stretch. I agree with the tests, but that is because of other cases. Chaplinsky, the case used by the appellate court to determine the criminal complaint on the Facebook posting cited was not held to those standards. It held that because some forms of expression do not convey ideas so are not subject to First Amendment protection.

From Chaplinsky:

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [Footnote 2] There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. [Footnote 3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [Footnote 4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. [Footnote 5]
"Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument."

That notwithstanding, I agree the OP has a case where the issue has not been decided and the courts are sure to address at some point. Since I suspect the OP has not been too badly hurt I don't think he will have the wherewithal to prosecute litigation without the help of some free-speech organization he can get interested in the subject. As I wrote originally:

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.

Maybe the ACLU or some organization like FIRE. For briefs, perhaps Professor Volokh will hold another clinic in the fall. (http://law.ucla.edu/academics/clinical-and-experiential-programs/the-clinical-experience/first-amendment-amicus-brief)

 

[LsPilot82]

I would love to pursue this, however I have no clue how to. I would love to have case law named after me..lol. I don't want to get rich from this. All I want is for my rights, and yours not to be violated. Like I said, my comments were not rude, nor did I curse or degrade anyone. They were political in nature, and they were about something I truly care about. They deleted both my Facebook and twitter comments, as well as blocked me from both of their social network pages. What can I do? How do I file a lawsuit against them? Help me please.

 

[tranquility]

I would love to pursue this, however I have no clue how to. I would love to have case law named after me..lol. I don't want to get rich from this. All I want is for my rights, and yours not to be violated. Like I said, my comments were not rude, nor did I curse or degrade anyone. They were political in nature, and they were about something I truly care about. They deleted both my Facebook and twitter comments, as well as blocked me from both of their social network pages. What can I do? How do I file a lawsuit against them? Help me please.

I gave two organizations that might care. I don't think they will, but they might point you somewhere. If you don't have tons of money to throw at this, you need to get a 1st amendment organization to help you.

 

[LsPilot82]

I gave two organizations that might care. I don't think they will, but they might point you somewhere. If you don't have tons of money to throw at this, you need to get a 1st amendment organization to help you.

Yes, thank you. I'm in the process of getting in touch with them now. I do not have a ton of money, but I'm willing to try. At least I could file something to get the attention of the government. I know they don't care, that's obvious, but knowing that they know about me would make me happier.

 

[tranquility]

Yes, thank you. I'm in the process of getting in touch with them now. I do not have a ton of money, but I'm willing to try. At least I could file something to get the attention of the government. I know they don't care, that's obvious, but knowing that they know about me would make me happier.

Good enough. With all the problems today, is yours worth hundreds of thousands? Personally, I can think of many worth more of my time or money. Still, without looking or knowing of the problem speech, I think you right.

"Try" is worthless. Fire in the belly is what one will need someday. No half measures, no doubt. I think you are not there.

Prosecuting this would take a lot of money. A lot. Even with a believer/sponsor, they will have to raise money from others. Because a guy can't write what he wants on the Thunderbird's page? It is hardly a "war on women" (reg us pat of, just saying), is it?