SCOTUS: Officials CAN'T BLOCK Constituents On Social Media
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 бер 2024
- Krystal and Saagar discuss SCOTUS ruling that government officials cannot block their own constituents on social media.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Merch Store: shop.breakingpoints.com/
To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61...
#news #politics #youtube
![[실시간] 전철에서 찍힌 기생생물 감염 장면 | 기생수: 더 그레이](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4nkFvwxGAfA/mqdefault.jpg)
It's just childish if you as a politician have to block someone else because you're offended.
@@leevy6753 As a politician, you open yourself up to criticism as a public figure that makes policy. You just have to deal with it.
Funny because that’s exactly what Trump did and SCOTUS corrected.
It's also childish to go around and insult people online, hiding behind a nickname.
@@darkrai7597 exactly
You don’t even have to be a politician to be considered childish for blocking someone over an opinion.
Rare supreme court W
How does anyone know if someone's their constituent or not? So many online profiles are foreigners, or bots... anyone can use the Internet and comment on anything they want. This is such a dumb take from the court because it's impossible to know if the account you're blocking is in your district.
@@libertas5005This, and even if they aren't from your district blocking should be illegal
@@libertas5005I'm sure it'd only come to light if the blocked person sues and proves they are a constituent
Then they shoukdnt be able to block anyone. They are PUBLIC servants. Their social media accounts should be set to 100% private if its their personal account. If its their public official account they shouldn't be able to block anything but profanity or other obscene posts.
Theyre not public servants of Russia or any other country. I've seen our officials being attacked by random idiots from all over the world. Should they just read all that crap because they got elected in the US? I don't think so. Leaders and politicians of other countries don't abide by any of these laws so why should anyone at that point?@@myhandlewastakenandIgaveup
The precedent really needs to be set that these positions are positions of servitude to the people they’re representing, not positions of power
What do you expect, when we live under a top down hierarchal society? 😊
How does anyone know if someone's their constituent or not? So many online profiles are foreigners, or bots... anyone can use the Internet and comment on anything they want. This is such a dumb take from the court because it's impossible to know if the account you're blocking is in your district.
@@libertas5005 dude if the NSA did its job it would be the easiest thing ever for official government accounts to abide by this law. They know everyone that is using a VPN and the location of the user.
So you're for Nikki Haley's law that US citizens should register their online accounts with their ID? Why do I feel you're the same kind of person who will complain about government overreach later? @@pumpost529yourmom
Really.. You think those who dictate how you live and die like a well-trained law obeying slave are your servants?? 😂😂😂
This is awesome man, dont be a public servant if you don't want to be involved in public
Perfectly said. So many of these politicians already think they don’t “really” answer to the public AND the rules we have to abide by don’t pertain to them. It’s gotten so bad…
Having been a public servant, part of the problem is that only the worst parts of the public seem to get involved. Everyone else goes about their day complaining about everything around them, doing nothing to change it, and then complains about "the system" as if they aren't part of it.
@@ricardorgomezso you think the narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths that you gave power, consent, legitimacy and 💵 to dictate how you live and die are your servants?? 😂😂😂
The simple solution to this dilemma is this: keep official business and personal and social stuff separate.
You can't if they coincide like with the covid 19 clot shots Personal and business ran into each other head on.
How about not give power, consent, legitimacy and 💵 to gangsters to be your masters to begin with?? 😂😂
Censorship is cheating
Censorship is a form of structural violence and social engineering.
“Personal violence is for the amateur in dominance, structural violence is the tool of the professional. The amateur who wants to dominate uses guns; the professional uses social structure.” -Johan Galtung.
It's pretty gay.
censorship is gay
Ppl just need to stay on good behavior you know they are not just imagine all the stuff that's went on before phones ppl are grotesquely sneaky @@zerocool5395
Dissent watch lists....
Sites that operate on government grants or assistance shouldn't be allowed to block or censor, either.
Not that hard. If you want a profile to be yours as a private citizen just NEVER cross-post that official government bulletin.
Hold on I’m checking… Nope, still blocked for asking questions they don’t like.
If only this made a difference
Nobody should be allowed to block anyone ever.
Remove the block feature for public officials
You don’t have to run for office. It’s that simple.
I know this is for officials, but what about agencies?
The ATF does not allow comments on any posts
riiight. how is this going to be enforced? Lmao
What type of adult blocks people because they cant handle criticism? Whats more is that they're talking about public officials whose whole schtick is to interact with the public.
I blame the pussification of our society on shying away from adversity whether its warranted or not.
Haaaaaaaahh! Im going to town with this. Respectfully of course…. Barely.
If you're prepared to offend, be prepared to defend.
Even with all the censorship we have in this country, we're luck we're not in Canada or UK.
Imagine getting locked up or facing fines for talking crap on the internet.
Imagine going to jail for a meme. Oh wait that already happened in this country. Hillary Clinton locked someone for making fun of her.
@@AndreAnyone I forgot about that, insane, deeply disturbing.
It's happening here quite a bit
@@zerocool5395 also, nice PFP 😉. I loved Ghost in the Shell as a teen!
U made a mistake luv ... You should've said *not yet* 🦅❤️😹
So will PBS's UA-cam open up comments?
Finally a court has recognized our Constitutional rights and taken action. Enough of these social media platforms acting with the government and denying free speech. The public has the right to hear all opinions regardless of their own opinions. The only way to know who is truly a threat is to hear exactly what they really believe. It’s our God given rights and not what the government gives us.
The moment a politician makes a post about politics from their private family account they open themselves and their account up for public comment and opinion.
Do what everyone else does and have two accounts.
Simple.
Next up, block lobbying of politicians? That would be amazing
Public officials can't block users on social media but social media can block public officials, even a sitting President? What's the logic behind that?
Elected officials can block those who are not their constituents. It’s a 1A issue, that a constituent has a constitutional right to express themselves to their elected official.
@@h8thaway but then, wouldn't banning officials from social media also violate constituents' right to express themselves to their elected officials?
So, the next step is to register your online account with your ID so that the government officials can know who is their constituent and who is not. Gotcha. That's why Nikki Haley was popular I guess.@@h8thaway
Who do you think OWN the RACKET?? You?? 😂😂
This isn't any different that not mixing personal/businesses bank or personal/work emails.
Good let them hear the pros and cons of their actions
My WA state representative blocked me and others on Facebook. He was taken to court for it, but the state judge ruled it did not infringe the 1A rights of constituents to have access to their elected official.
Contact a lawyer because this case will overtune this.
Lawyers love this ruling.
Hey Saagar? It's *NOT A PIPELINE* The phrase is *coming down the Pike*
It can be either or.
lol. Saagar has been bungling common expressions since forever. You can watch old videos of him on The Hill doing it almost every episode. 🤣🤣
NO. The Supreme Court is NOT part of a pipeline, or shouldn't be in any event@@kamifuujin
@@tymax6751 Saagar's brain always gets ahead of his mouth. He is less well educated than he would have you believe.
@milesobrien2694 i wws refering to the phrase no clue what you are on about. I have heard the saying both ways, and most seem to accept either phrasing as ok so yea it can be either or.
Pathetic that we have to define these lines in the courtroom instead of the house of representatives... but glad to see the court unified in protecting free speech.
"House of Representatives", what's that. all they are any more is a high school club with special cliques getting mad at each other because every one wants to be the superior clique or head honcho.
We are so behind technology. We still don't have full consumer protections for digital data. No ownership Rights of digital softwate.
No labor rights for data production….
It's not hard at all. If you keep your private media private, it stays that way. The minute you post a government post, it becomes public, and can be FOIA requested. If the tax payers pay for their phone, their phone is the publics phone, we can FIOA it. Don't like it? Don't use tax payer phones
Offials should NEVER make a single post related to their public jobs.
Are you saying that officials shouldn’t be able to communicate with their constituents via social media channels? Don’t think you thought that through.
excellent
So, do muted messages go out to other followers of the person who muted you?
I wish I could mute Krystal on Breaking Points, I have become skilled at fast forwarding when she begins her screeching rants.
Poor Ms Wasserman Schultz
Governments only interaction withna private company should be through passing laws and courts.
Great news!
Getting blocked by the Mayor of Kansas City was definitely a satisfying moment 😆
That’s great!
Krystal’s voice… nails on a chalkboard. Plus I usually dislike the words. Double whammy. Have fun Kyle.
Is that what Krystal looks like without makeup?? Yikes
Thank you Michigan man
Ugh I hate that I can’t watch you two anymore. Wish I could just see more of Sagaar, you are a great middle ground.
Muting 'is' blocking 😏
But it is still their private account? What insanity is from the Supreme Court?
It becomes public when they choose to do public business on it. So...have separate accounts. Simple solution.
@@joannleichliter4308 I agree. However, it is not up to FB to determine that? If it is his private account per FB then it is private, period. According to FB. The individuals got butt hurt. You can make the same argument about your phone.
🦉If someone gets malicious mail, block them, BUT if it's a constituent that offers constructive criticism, they should NOT be blocked from their D.C. Rep who was elected by the constituents in that district ~
😏 Elsewise, if the Rep doesn't care to respond to the questions posed to them, then they should either quit or be recalled, easy peasy, but...
💪🏽the ppl must network, organize & mobilize your community, call for a town hall meeting with a lrg number of ppl present as a show of force to be taken seriously ~
🧐 Rep. should set aside an evening with their constituents without interruptions or excuses to leave but stay for a duration up to, at least, 2 hrs, no yelling Yet,
expect a respectful & truthful exchange & a commitment from your Rep. to update you asap on issues of top concern ...
Or else ~🤨 🤭 Ty
AOC fuming rn
"Impactful" is a non word.
Also, bullets impact. Rulings don't.
Awesome
Tech question from an old person... Does the "mute" function prevent other viewers and commenters from seeing and interacting with "muted" ones comments?
Delivery confusing in stating the actual ruling.
Amazing news!
Good. Democrats and Republicans (especially) can't block people who pushback on anything they say albeit First amendment. First amendment applies to anyone associated in govt, not social media itself, though.
That virus from unknown origin showed the hypocrisy from all these hacks.
Republicans....🤔
Funny you say especially republicans when the SCOTUS is about to side on behalf of the Biden administration in regards to strong arming social media companies in silencing critics over the last 3 years.
Perfect answer... LOL. Mute them!
Blocking is for bad actors and scammers.
Muting is a personal response right rightly applied for peace of mind including facilitating maintaining cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases. LOL
Yay
A lot people get thus ruling wrong. It has always been the case law that Federal government officials could not ban people or remove posts. This ruling allows them to remove posts from their social media if it government official's is personal and not policy or government related or they can ban people from their person social media if it is all personal in nature
I don't block people, I only mute them..." wtf
Blocked keeps you, the blocked party, from interacting with an account at all. Mute is still able to post to your posts, videos and comments, and others can still see those posts, without you being spammed by dozens of foolish messages.
Muted trolls are like moths trying to get at your porch light.
distinction without a difference ... completely ignoring all notification requires willpower or self restraint. She's copping out and HIDING from criticism by having a "feature" do it for her
@@iller3She's wearing a hat with a bug net attached to it so the gnats can't land on her even though they can see her.
Nationalize them. The public should have a public platform.
Nationalizing them would just give the government ultimate censorship power.
The only time I block people is when they block me first. I then reciprocate so they can’t continue to reply to me.
Blocking the Blockheads is so satisfying!
Muting is still an option
Yeah. They already had to sit Trump down and tell him this.
And then, the FBI and DHS said ‘hold my beer,’ and set up a secret censorship program on FB and Twitter.
Funny how far the interpretation of “Congress shall make no law” has veered off into the absurd with the 1st Amendment.
How does this effect youtube blocking, ghosting or shadow banning 70% of my stand alone comments?
A public servant has waived their civil rights while on duty. A elected official is a full time salary 24/7 job
There needs to be more of a personal cost for people to “serve” in our government.
Very big news
Since the ruing is a post by post determination, govt officials will need software that allows blocking post by post rather than blocking a user from all posts. I have not seen that capability on any major platform to date.
Oh, for Pete's sake! Just have separate accounts. It's not rocket science.
@@joannleichliter4308
Remember, these are politicians.
@@2Truth4Liberty Good point.
Is there a new definition for "Freedom of Speech" as the only difference here is from town square to newspapers, radio, and tv to digital. That's all it is to me.
Your personal account should be in your personal name, your public service role should be named by your title. And never the two should meet. Simple fix.
Yep ms wadsack
Bleep bloop what about Emily?
Boston mayor is sweating right now
This makes sense for official government accounts but imo not for a purely personal account. Plus how do you know who exactly is your constituent is online.
Depends on if that public official is using private accounts for public capacity or business, which they do all the time
How does anyone know if someone's their constituent or not? So many online profiles are foreigners, or bots... anyone can use the Internet and comment on anything they want. This is such a dumb take from the court because it's impossible to know if the account you're blocking is in your district.
Lmfao
@@libertas5005by constituents they mean humans living in USA. Try to not have child like takes on stuff
There are many cases of a public official blocking people the official knows are his/her constituents. Once a public official uses a social media account to communicate with constituents, he/she must provide access to all his/her constituents under 1A.
What's the diff as a public servant between blocking your constituents and muting them? If you're not seeing the messages either way then aren't both things a violation of free speech?
Nothing like saving Thursdays news for the weekend since they lack much help from other contributors. At least it’s not breaking news.
If these social media platforms are "privately owned" , they should be able to do anything they want. When these things are not publicly owned, government owned, a public utility, etc, the Constitution does not apply. That's why I always been for internet as a public utility, and these platforms, but of course, we don't have that in America, because we are in a semi-state of corporate ownership/communism. The disgusting thing, is all our leadership from the courts on down speak out both sides of their mouths 🟪
Censorship is for wimps.
If you're a public servant, which let's be honest is not anymore true than pigs can fly, you should be required to take all forms of public relations for or against you.
This will be so much fun. Does that mean that under an official account, let’s say Kamala Harris Vice President she would have to tolerate all people and any speech that is legal?
How does anyone know if someone's their constituent or not? So many online profiles are foreigners, or bots... anyone can use the Internet and comment on anything they want. This is such a dumb take from the court because it's impossible to know if the account you're blocking is in your district.
What I get from this is that there is a right to freedom of speech, and there is no right to ignore.
And, in certain situations, the government can hold ignoring against you.
I would add to political criticism, also reporting of unlawful activity, and speech used in self defense, which are related.
It's not necessarily criminal to ignore this kind of speech, but it's definitely not a good look in a courtroom!
Respect for the non block mentality way to be.
This shouldn't that difficult. Public officials are also private citizens. They should be able to block or remove anything from their Facebook page that they want. They need to have an official government Facebook page that comes with the job to disseminate information and interact with the public.
In the early days of social media and until this day, I only use Facebook for personal and family related communication. All business related communication was done on Linked In. I did this on purpose.
This is the obvious common sense approach. They could and should have a private account. And it should have nothing to do with their public account.
And they should have an official account that serves the public in their public capacity. If anything all public positions have official accounts that transfer with the position. Like the potus Twitter account.
The difficulty comes when public officials use their “private” account as an informal platform for campaigning and fundraising.
The issue with that is if you notice Politicians already have a separate campaign account to follow pre existing amp sign finance laws. Like they can show clips of them in Congress on their government account. But it would be illegal for them to post videos of them in Congress on their campaign account. They would have to have a 3rd account at that point that only detailed their personal life to be able to block people haha.
Why is that difficult? Even if you have a separate campaign account, you don't have to take abuse from citizens. The complaint department is a different account. The first amendment also includes freedom of association. You don't have to subject yourself to idiocy of every person in the country. This is why you should have an Office of President Account they communicates to everyone. I think Biden should be allowed to have a Biden Family group that limits who can see and reply to the messages.
Is Krystal stoned?
I don't think "public servants" should be able to block me, but some people are like gnats that are nothing but an irritation that won't go away.
People that are disruptive at a town council meeting can be removed, so why not people that are just trolling on social media?
Because terms like "disruptive" and "trolling" are subjective and mean different things to different people. What one person considers being disruptive and trolling another person may consider to be constructive criticism and vice versa. Also when you open that door the people in positions of power will instantly declare all criticism of them to be disruptive or trolling and have the criticism removed and the critic banned. The problem with having speech removed for being hateful is that no one has the ability to read minds. No one knows if the speaker actually hates someone or if they just disagree with them. No one knows if the listener is suffering actual harm from the speech or if he is just butthurt or upset that his point of view is being challenged by someone with a different point of view.
@@briancooper1412Some people have nothing to offer to public discourse and only take up space with their keyboard vomit.
@@patmcbride9853 And what is to keep someone from declaring that your opinion adds nothing to public discourse? Why can't people understand that any excuse they can use to suppress someone else's ability to express themselves can easily be turned around to be used to suppress their ability to express themselves. It doesn't matter whether someone's viewpoint adds to discourse or not. All that matters is that one you use that as an excuse to block people from expressing themselves bad actors will use that same excuse to block opinions of yours they do not agree with. Either everyone has the freedom to express their opinions or no one does. Once you set a precedent that allows for people to have the ability to restrict speech for certain reasons they will manufacture reasons and justifications for those restrictions to be applied to speech they simply just do not want other people to hear.
Once you decide you are going to saw off the very extreme most end of the limb eventually every other part of the limb becomes the most extreme end of the limb and also needs sawing off until eventually there Is no limb left to saw.
@@briancooper1412You get an opinion, why don't they?
Its just about keeping people quiet the pathetic CBC in Canada tirns off all comments most of the news channels in Canada do that they cant take the heat
If you are a lawmaker you dont have a personal account.... Deal with it.
Does that include anonymous accounts and accounts for individuals outside of your territory?
Hey! Muting doesn’t work! I muted Matt Iglesias and he STILL shows up in my feed CONSTANTLY! Yuck!
How does anyone know if someone's their constituent or not? So many online profiles are foreigners, or bots... anyone can use the Internet and comment on anything they want. This is such a dumb take from the court because it's impossible to know if the account you're blocking is in your district.
The 1st Amendment applies to all, not just in your district.
Doesn't apply to foreign citizens, duh... Or are you like Nikki Haley who would like people to register with their ID before they use Internet?@@Cybersawz
When is Breaking Points going to cover the border?
I'm surprised Saagar hasn't blocked porn bots. That's a block or mute or both function there.
Criticizing your government and its representatives is a constitutionally protected right.
If you dont like the criticism, dont take the job. Period.
Is it just the angle or is there something going on with krystals left eyebrow (her left)?
Can SM companies slow down access to ‘problematic/wish we could block but can’t’ users?
They could slow down access seconds to minutes to the SM ‘problematic’ user’s site? I can see how they could do this ‘legally’ and other users accessing wouldn’t have the patient to wait.
Anyone else think Ritchie Torres is wearing a hair unit?
I’d love to see Krystal’s mute list. Im sure there’s a lot of people on the right who had the smallest disagreement with her or called her out for some BS she said
if you post anything public on your private page sorry its public now, there must be a hard hard line, no ifs ands or buts....you need to keep everyting apart ...