--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-Hosted Social Media – How To Avoid First Amendment Claims
By David Urban on April 5, 2018

Relative Excerpt:

Many public agencies, including law enforcement, cities, counties, and educational institutions, themselves host social media sites for the benefit of the community, and encourage the public to post comments. The First Amendment, however, does apply to these government agencies, and curating or censoring comments can, in some circumstances, lead to claims of First Amendment violations and expensive lawsuits.

For example, in 2012, the Honolulu Police Department faced a legal challenge to its decision to remove two local residents’ comments from its Department Facebook page. The residents argued that the Police Department had created a public forum in its maintenance of the Facebook page, and that removal of their posts constituted unconstitutional censorship.

The Department’s guidelines described the page as “a forum open to the public,” yet the Department allegedly removed the residents’ posts simply because they were critical of the Department. The case eventually settled with a payment by the Department of attorneys’ fees, and an agreement to revise its social media policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION PODCAST:

We The People Podcast
When does Twitter blocking violate the First Amendment?

August 01, 2019
President Trump can no longer block people on Twitter, following a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court held that because President Trump controls access to his @realdonaldtrump Twitter account and uses it for official government purposes, it is a public forum and, under the First Amendment, he cannot block people solely based on their viewpoints. Katie Fallow – one of the lead attorneys who represented the blocked Twitter users in the case – and David French, senior writer at National Review and former First Amendment litigator, debate the merits of the decision as well as its potential impact on future cases.

They also explore a similar lawsuit recently filed against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by people claiming that she unconstitutionally blocked them on Twitter. And, they explain how the Second Circuit’s decision may impact government attempts to regulate social media. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

FULL PODCAST : 48min 28sec



SO WHY IS THERE A "RED ERROR MESSAGE" ON FACEBOOK MESSENGER WITH THIS PAGE?




SO WHY DOES TWITTER SHOW THE STATUS BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT [ @SanBernardinoPD ] AND MY ACCOUNT [ @Gruwup ] AS BLOCKED?



************ THIS FLAGGED STATUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR MORE THAN TWO MONTHS **********

In Case Management Call Recordings --- I Had A Request Made For These Actions Against Me
T O - B E - R E M O V E D - A N D - R E V E R S E D - B Y - T H E - S A N - B E R N A R D I N O P O L I C E - P E R S O N E L L / S T A F F - I N V O L V E D - I N - V I O L A T I N G
M Y - 1 S T - A D M E N D M E N T [ Of The Constituion Of The United States Of America ]
R I G H T S [ Goes Ignored / Unaddressed ]! Tell Me Why I Should Not Persue Personal Damages
For These Interferences -- Intentionally [ Not Accidental ] Actions of Malace?

$500,000 Against The Department Itself!
and
$10,000 Against The Individual Persons -- Per Action - There Are More Govermental Examples

and PROCEED TO A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT....

18 U.S. Code ?241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, ?103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §?7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §?60006(a), title XXXII, §§?320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§?604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

------------------------------

18 U.S. Code ?242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, ?103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §?7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §?60006(b), title XXXII, §§?320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§?604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

------------------------------
????????? EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOUR ENTIRE SCHEME TO INITATE SOCIAL SERVICES PER AN AGAINST ME AS A CITIZEN --- AND US AS A FAMILY -- AND US AS A COMMUNITY TO
WHICH THESE PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG-TERM?
NO NO NO NO NO FUCKED UP HUMAN WAY IS THIS NOT SYSTEMIC --- NO FUCKING WAY IS
THIS NOT CALCULATED! NO FUCKING WAY IS THIS A MERE MISTAKE! NO FUCKING WAY
YOU MOTHER FUCKING ASSHOLES! [ #FuckedupHumanGeyserAssholes - Lieutenant-Nelson-Carrington [ You Perhaps Should Check What This Link Does ]

Google Search [ #FuckedupHumanGeyserAssholes ]