UPDATE: U.S. District Court rules a PUBLIC official's Twitter-blocking is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Talk about timing! Hoboken Council, pay attention.

Today, the United States Court  of the Southern District of New York issued an order for Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, et. al v  Donald Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Daniel Scavino,  ruling that it is unconstitutional for a public figure (Trump) to block Twitter users. 

The Order  begins:

This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States.  The answer to both questions is no. 

 Here is the order in full:

Southern New York District Court Decision: Public Officials cannot block Twitter Users by GrafixAvenger on Scribd

___________ 

Have you ever been banned from commenting or blocked entirely on a Hoboken elected official's Facebook or Twitter accounts? 

GA will tell you whether that's kosher or a violation of your First Amendment rights. But first...

RUSSO LIFTS THE GA-EMBARGO
Thanks to Councilman Russo for  his attention to this most urgent matter! Shortly after I notified the Councilman that he'd inadvertently blocked me on Twitter, (preventing me from voting on his OTB poll) he contacted me:

See?  Russo can take his lumps--unlike that Hothouse Flower, Mike DeFusco. Poor, delicate Mike...

That doesn't seem right, does it? He's a legislator. He discusses issues which affect me and my community. I am a constituent.

Which raises the question: is it a civil rights violation for a sitting Councilman block a member of the public on their social media account? Can it be challenged in court?

Well... apparently, that depends upon the role the public person embodies on their social media account: private speaker or public actor. The ACLU article,"Can a Government Official Block You on Twitter?",  explains:

"...courts must begin by asking which role a public official embodies on a given social media account: that of a private speaker or a government actor. If the answer is “private speaker,” she can limit her audience and curate the messages on the page, just like any other member of the public. But if the answer is “government actor,” the First Amendment dictates that she can’t prohibit access to her social media in three specific circumstances.

• First, once she intentionally opens up her social media for public conversation, she can’t stop people from joining in because of the views they express on the topics at hand. 
• Second, if she generally allows individuals to ask for government services through her social media account, she can’t block critical voices from doing so. 
• And, finally, if she uses her account to publicly share government information, she can’t prevent people from actually being able to see her posts because of their viewpoints.

This is all for good reason. Allowing a government actor to ban critics from speaking in public forums would silence and chill dissent, warp the public conversation, and skew public perception. And enabling government actors to block critics from petitioning them for services or seeing public information would mean punishing them for speaking out or holding critical views."

Hear that, Councilman?  In fact, Michael DeFusco uses his social media accounts in his capacity as a government actor,  meaning he cannot prohibit (or limit) members of the public- critics and sycophants- from his social media. 

But he does.

Councilman DeFusco opens himself to a First Amendment complaint for "punishing" members of the public who do not endorse his views, for censorship of his critics. Not just Twitter; DeFusco blocks critics from commenting on his Facebook page. Clearly he is moderating the hell out of his social media accounts to skew public perception that he has no dissenters, that there are no challengers to his statements, proposals, public policy; he's turned his social media accounts into a sycophants-only Pravda. 

So... cheers to Russo for lifting the Twitter-embargo. 

Boo-hiss to DeFusco for his e-Pravda anti-social, anti-First Amendment Twitter and Facebook pages.

If any Hoboken elected official is blocking you from access to/or participation in discourse, on their social media, they've got some splainin' to do. 

Oh yeah, the same goes for the mayor.

Bhalla has to take verbal slings and arrows from members of the public, along with their praise. And judging from the vitriol I've seen posted on his page- especially during the election- Hoboken's Chief Executive does not censor critics.